Rs 10,000 Compensation Exposes Manipur Government's Failure to Be Transparent on IDP Relief

The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Manipur Information Commission against the public authority represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur may appear small in monetary terms. But in its institutional meaning, it is a serious indictment of how the state has handled public information relating to Internally Displaced Persons.

This is not merely about one RTI applicant receiving compensation. It is about the larger question of whether bonafide citizens internally displaced by violence, and those working for their rights, are entitled to know how relief and rehabilitation decisions are being made in their name.

At a time when thousands of displaced persons continue to live with uncertainty, the state cannot treat information on relief, rehabilitation, sanction orders, beneficiary lists and selection procedures as a matter of administrative convenience. These are not ordinary files. They concern the lives, dignity and future of people uprooted from their homes.

The issue has become sharper after the Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh met representatives of six groups of Internally Displaced Persons at the Chief Minister’s Bungalow in Imphal on August 24 and assured them that the government is sincerely working towards their rehabilitation and resettlement.

The representatives raised concerns over resettlement, relief camp conditions and the state of their native villages. The meeting was attended by senior officials, including Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar, Special Secretary (Home) Ahanthem Subash Singh, Deputy Commissioners of various districts and representatives of displaced groups from Churachandpur, Moreh, Kangpokpi, Torbung and other affected areas.

Such a meeting is welcome. Direct engagement with displaced citizens is necessary. But meetings and assurances cannot substitute transparent governance. If the government is sincerely working for the displaced, it must also be ready to place the record of that work before the public, except where disclosure would clearly endanger individuals or compromise legitimate security concerns.

For the Chief Minister’s initiative to have real meaning, the entire government machinery must move with seriousness and sensitivity. Rehabilitation of IDPs cannot be left to political assurance alone. Departments, district administrations and officers dealing with relief must support Yumnam Khemchand Singh’s effort by acting transparently, responding promptly and understanding the pain of families who have suffered since May 3, 2023. Their suffering is not temporary inconvenience. It is a prolonged human crisis that demands empathy, efficiency and accountability from every level of administration.

The Manipur Information Commission’s decision dated August 17, 2026 in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2025, arising from an RTI application filed by W Joykumar Singh on August 16, 2024, brings this question into sharp focus. The application sought detailed information relating to schemes, sanction orders, beneficiary lists, selection procedures and transparency measures concerning relief and rehabilitation of IDPs in Manipur.

The Commission recorded that the matter had remained pending for a prolonged period. It noted repeated opportunities granted to the public authority, partial information furnished on different dates, persistent non-compliance, a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act, and continued directions for complete disclosure and proactive uploading under Section 4(1)(b).

Despite this long process, complete compliance was not achieved.

The State Public Information Officer claimed that available and legally disclosable information had already been provided. The SPIO also contended that remaining information concerned sensitive data regarding IDPs and fell within the purview of the Justice Gita Mittal Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. The appellant rejected this position and argued that the information supplied was incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory. He also stated that State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners had not been provided and that the plea of sub judice could not be used to deny information sought under the RTI Act.

The Commission’s observation is important. It found an inordinate delay of nearly two years in furnishing complete information. It noted that important records, particularly State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners, complete beneficiary lists, selection procedures and file notings, remained pending. It also recorded that the continued absence of responsible officers and non-compliance with repeated directions had caused clear detriment, mental harassment and loss of opportunity to the appellant.

The decision directed the public authority, represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the appellant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act within 30 days. It further directed the SPIO or Joint Secretary (Home) to furnish complete remaining information within 15 days, particularly the State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners and other pending items. The Commissioner (Home) was also directed to ensure that all disclosable information relating to IDP relief is proactively uploaded on the official website.

This order should worry the government. The Rs 10,000 compensation is not the final story. It is a warning that the state’s relief and rehabilitation system cannot function behind closed doors. If public money is sanctioned for displaced citizens, the public has a right to know how it is sanctioned, where it is sent, who receives benefit, what criteria are followed and what safeguards exist against exclusion, duplication or favouritism.

The internally displaced are not numbers in government reports. They are families that have lost homes, livelihoods, documents, farmland, shops, schools, places of worship, neighbourhoods and personal security. Many continue to live in relief camps with deep anxiety about return, compensation, reconstruction and safety. Their children have lost years of normal childhood. Elderly persons live with the pain of separation from ancestral homes. Women carry the burden of managing households under conditions of displacement and uncertainty.

For such citizens, information is not a luxury. It is part of justice. When sanction orders are not disclosed, people cannot know whether funds meant for them have reached the district administration. When beneficiary lists are incomplete or unavailable, people cannot know whether deserving families have been excluded. When selection procedures are not clear, suspicion grows. When file notings remain hidden without lawful justification, accountability weakens.

This is how public trust collapses. No one is arguing that every detail about displaced persons should be published carelessly. Personal addresses, sensitive locations and information that could place vulnerable families at risk must be protected. The safety and dignity of IDPs must remain central. But this cannot become an excuse to hide all information relating to funds, decisions and policy implementation.

There is a clear difference between protecting vulnerable citizens and shielding administrative opacity.

The Manipur Information Commission’s decision recognises this difference. It does not ask for reckless disclosure. It asks for complete remaining information and proactive uploading of disclosable records. This is exactly what the RTI Act was designed to secure.

The Home Department must therefore comply fully and quickly. It should not treat the order as a minor administrative inconvenience. It should see it as an opportunity to rebuild public confidence in one of the most sensitive areas of governance in Manipur today.

The government should immediately publish district-wise and scheme-wise information on IDP relief and rehabilitation, while removing personal details that may compromise safety. It should upload sanction orders, broad categories of beneficiaries, selection criteria, camp-wise assistance details, fund utilisation updates and the status of rehabilitation measures. It should also provide a regular public update on what has been done, what remains pending and what timelines are being followed.

Such transparency will help the government as much as it will help the people. It will reduce rumour. It will protect honest officers from unfair allegations. It will allow civil society, media, courts and affected families to assess the real situation. It will also expose gaps that can be corrected before they become deeper grievances.

The Chief Minister’s assurance to IDP representatives must be matched by this kind of institutional seriousness. Sincerity in public life is not measured by statements alone. It is measured by records, compliance, delivery and accountability.

The internally displaced persons have already suffered too much. They should not have to struggle for nearly two years merely to know what has been sanctioned in their name. They should not have to depend on RTI appeals, repeated hearings and compensation orders to access basic information about relief and rehabilitation.

The state’s obligation is not only to provide relief. It is to do so fairly, transparently and with dignity.

The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Commission is therefore more than a payment to one appellant. It is a moral and administrative reminder to the Manipur government that the suffering of IDPs cannot be managed through silence, delay and partial disclosure.

Relief without transparency breeds suspicion. Rehabilitation without accountability becomes fragile. Resettlement without public trust cannot bring durable peace.

If Manipur is serious about helping its displaced citizens return to dignity, the government must begin by opening its records.