The controversy surrounding the Manipur Khadi and Village Industries Board (MKVIB) has reached a stage where silence from the Government of Manipur is no longer acceptable. Questions over the expiry of the Board’s tenure, the continued functioning of former members and the appointment of 23 persons without a publicly visible recruitment process demand immediate clarification and action.
The issue is not merely about 23 appointments. It concerns the legality of decisions taken by a statutory body and, more importantly, the authority under which those decisions were made.
According to information available, the tenure of the MKVIB Board expired on October 28, 2025. Yet members whose terms had reportedly ended continued to attend the office. More significantly, former Member Secretary Chingakham Sanajaoba Singh reportedly accepted the joining reports of the 23 appointees after the expiry of the Board’s tenure.
This raises the most fundamental question: under what authority did an office-holder whose tenure had expired continue to exercise the powers of the office?
There may be a perfectly lawful explanation. The government may have extended the tenure, reappointed the members or reconstituted the Board. If so, the matter can be settled immediately by producing the relevant notification.
If no such order exists, however, the government must explain how the former members continued to function.
The distinction between the existence of an institution and the tenure of its office-bearers is important. MKVIB may have perpetual succession as a statutory body, but that does not confer perpetual tenure on its members. The institution may continue; individual authority must remain rooted in a valid appointment or statutory provision.
The matter becomes even more serious if the official MKVIB communication dated May 2, 2026, referred to Sanajaoba Singh as the “Outgoing Secretary” and directed him and other outgoing office-bearers to return official vehicles. If he was officially considered outgoing, under what authority did he subsequently accept joining reports?
The government must answer this apparent contradiction.
The recruitment of 23 persons raises another set of questions. The absence of a recruitment advertisement, by itself, does not automatically establish illegality. But where public employment and government funds are involved, transparency is essential.
Were the posts sanctioned? Was government approval obtained? What recruitment rules were followed? Were applications invited? Who constituted the selection committee? How were candidates selected? Who issued the appointment orders? And who authorised the acceptance of their joining reports?
These questions cannot be dismissed as politically motivated simply because they are uncomfortable.
The government has a straightforward way to settle the controversy: make the records public.
The relevant Board reconstitution or extension orders, appointment and reappointment notifications, sanctioned-post approvals, recruitment records, selection proceedings, appointment orders and documents establishing the authority of the person who accepted the joining reports should be examined and, wherever legally permissible, placed in the public domain.
If everything was done according to law, transparency will clear the Board and the officials concerned. If irregularities occurred, an inquiry must identify those responsible and determine what corrective action is required.
There is another important consideration. The 23 individuals should not become the convenient target of an administrative controversy. If they accepted appointments believing that they had been lawfully selected, their individual position must be considered separately from any institutional or procedural failure. Responsibility, if established, should fall on those who exercised authority improperly.
The government should also clarify whether the MKVIB is presently functioning under a validly constituted Board. If the Board’s tenure expired and no successor was appointed, what mechanism has been governing its affairs? If an interim arrangement exists, where is its legal basis?
These are matters that concern the rule of law, not merely departmental administration.
A statutory institution cannot be permitted to operate in a legal grey zone. Public bodies derive their authority from legislation, rules and government orders. Once the prescribed tenure of office-holders ends, their continued exercise of statutory powers must have a demonstrable legal foundation.
The Government of Manipur should therefore act without further delay. It should order a time-bound inquiry, verify the legal status of the Board and examine the entire recruitment process leading to the appointment of the 23 persons.
Most importantly, the government must answer whether the former Member Secretary had lawful authority to accept their joining reports.
If the allegations are wrong, let the government prove them wrong through documents. If violations occurred, let responsibility be fixed.
Silence cannot resolve a question of statutory authority. Documents can. An impartial inquiry can. Law must.
The people of Manipur deserve to know whether the MKVIB was functioning according to law or whether public authority continued after the expiry of the authority to exercise it.
The government must now provide the answer. The ball is in thier court.
