The Frontier Manipur: Manipur: Thursday, 17 July 2025.
The original RTI
application, dated 16 August 2024, sought detailed data on schemes, beneficiary
lists, sanction orders, and relief measures implemented for IDPs displaced
during the ethnic violence that escalated in May 2023. Despite the grave
humanitarian stakes, the response was riddled with non-answers, delays, and
redirection to other departments.
TFM Special Report
In a powerful appeal to the Manipur Information Commission, Wahengbam Joykumar Singh, a citizen from Imphal East, has blown the lid off what he alleges is a systemic attempt by state authorities to block crucial public information about relief measures for thousands of victims and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) affected by the ongoing Meitei–Kuki-Zo ethnic conflict in Manipur.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 990 of 2021 (Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India) which reaffirms the statutory obligation of public authorities to proactively disclose information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, Wahengbam Joykumar’s appeal (Case No. 2 of 2025) levels serious allegations against the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Home Department for failing to disclose, diverting the request, and ultimately providing what he calls “misleading and incomplete” responses.
Timeline of Delay and Obstruction
The original RTI application, dated 16 August 2024, sought detailed data on schemes, beneficiary lists, sanction orders, and relief measures implemented for IDPs displaced during the ethnic violence that escalated in May 2023. Despite the grave humanitarian stakes, the response was riddled with non-answers, delays, and redirection to other departments.
The documents finally disclosed by the Home Department (signed by Joint Secretary H. Balkrishna Singh) reveal a staggering Rs 475.06 crore approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) across several relief schemes. These include:
Violation of RTI Act and Supreme Court Directives
The appeal highlights that despite the Supreme Court’s explicit order directing State Information Commissions to ensure the enforcement of Section 4, the Manipur authorities have failed to upload essential relief information on their websites, thereby violating the Right to Life and Dignity of affected citizens.
Quoting the apex court, the appellant emphasizes: “The purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’.”
Calls for Accountability
Singh’s appeal prays for:
A Larger Crisis of Governance
The ethnic conflict has displaced tens of thousands in Manipur. Wahengbam Joykumar argues that this is not merely a bureaucratic lapse but a humanitarian failure. Without transparent information on how relief is being distributed, public trust in governance erodes.
The documents also expose the shifting of responsibility between the CM’s Secretariat and Home Department, with replies either referring to Deputy Commissioners or missing altogether indicating a lack of coordination, urgency, and compassion in addressing a national crisis.
Final Plea
In his concluding remark to the Commission, Wahengbam Joykumar writes: “I am in need of the required information urgently so that we can help those helpless people.” The ball is now in the Manipur Information Commission’s court. Whether it will uphold the spirit of the RTI Act or allow bureaucratic evasion to persist remains to be seen.
TFM Special Report
In a powerful appeal to the Manipur Information Commission, Wahengbam Joykumar Singh, a citizen from Imphal East, has blown the lid off what he alleges is a systemic attempt by state authorities to block crucial public information about relief measures for thousands of victims and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) affected by the ongoing Meitei–Kuki-Zo ethnic conflict in Manipur.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 990 of 2021 (Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India) which reaffirms the statutory obligation of public authorities to proactively disclose information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, Wahengbam Joykumar’s appeal (Case No. 2 of 2025) levels serious allegations against the Chief Minister’s Secretariat and the Home Department for failing to disclose, diverting the request, and ultimately providing what he calls “misleading and incomplete” responses.
Timeline of Delay and Obstruction
The original RTI application, dated 16 August 2024, sought detailed data on schemes, beneficiary lists, sanction orders, and relief measures implemented for IDPs displaced during the ethnic violence that escalated in May 2023. Despite the grave humanitarian stakes, the response was riddled with non-answers, delays, and redirection to other departments.
- October 2024: A First Appeal was filed after the SPIO of the CM’s Office failed to reply within the statutory 30-day period. The appeal also received no response.
- January 2025: A second appeal was filed with the Manipur Information Commission, but the applicant was again told the matter had been “transferred to the Home Department,” with no formal intimation.
- April 2025: The applicant submitted a rejoinder noting that the reply from the Home Department’s Joint Secretary (Home), Balkrishna Heisnam, was “false, incomplete and misleading.”
- March 2025: Nearly 7 months after the initial RTI, the Home Department released partial data but failed to respond to the most crucial aspects specifically the list of beneficiaries, selection criteria, and the process of fund allocation.
The documents finally disclosed by the Home Department (signed by Joint Secretary H. Balkrishna Singh) reveal a staggering Rs 475.06 crore approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) across several relief schemes. These include:
- Rs101.75 crore for operation of relief camps
- Rs 145.18 crore for temporary housing for 3000 homes
- Rs 89.22 crore for nutrition and hygiene
- Rs 38.60 crore for agricultural crop loss
- 5.65 crore (pending) for clothing and personal belongings
Violation of RTI Act and Supreme Court Directives
The appeal highlights that despite the Supreme Court’s explicit order directing State Information Commissions to ensure the enforcement of Section 4, the Manipur authorities have failed to upload essential relief information on their websites, thereby violating the Right to Life and Dignity of affected citizens.
Quoting the apex court, the appellant emphasizes: “The purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’.”
Calls for Accountability
Singh’s appeal prays for:
- A directive for proactive disclosure by the C.M. Secretariat and all concerned authorities;
- Appointment of designated SPIO and Appellate Authority in the CM’s Office;
- Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act against responsible officers;
- Heavy compensation for denial and delay in public interest information.
A Larger Crisis of Governance
The ethnic conflict has displaced tens of thousands in Manipur. Wahengbam Joykumar argues that this is not merely a bureaucratic lapse but a humanitarian failure. Without transparent information on how relief is being distributed, public trust in governance erodes.
The documents also expose the shifting of responsibility between the CM’s Secretariat and Home Department, with replies either referring to Deputy Commissioners or missing altogether indicating a lack of coordination, urgency, and compassion in addressing a national crisis.
Final Plea
In his concluding remark to the Commission, Wahengbam Joykumar writes: “I am in need of the required information urgently so that we can help those helpless people.” The ball is now in the Manipur Information Commission’s court. Whether it will uphold the spirit of the RTI Act or allow bureaucratic evasion to persist remains to be seen.
.JPG)
.JPG)
