Point of law: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 175 (1)(q) and Section 177 (1) must fail. The right to contest an election for any office in Panchayat is neither fundamental nor a common law right. It is the creature of a statute and is obviously subject to qualifications and disqualifications enacted by legislation. It may be permissible for Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy or polygamy or to have children more than one. What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become a religious practice or a positive tenet of a religion.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7705/2019; Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7789/2018; Mr. H.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7503/2019, W.P. (C) No. 26/2020, W.P. (C) No. 2687/2020 and W.P. (C) No. 2691/2020 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2297/2020. Also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent authorities in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department; Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the other State respondents; Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5-7 in W.P. (C) No. 7705/2019, W.P. (C) No. 7729/2018 and W.P. (C) No. 7503/2019; Mr. A.R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 26/2020; Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and 8 in W.P. (C) No. 2297/2020 and Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 2691/2020.

2. As the subject-matters involved in this batch of writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are common and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions are taken up together for adjudication.

3. The common issues involved herein are relatable to (a) insertion of new sub-section (2) in Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, inserted by the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2018, more particularly, clause (a) in new sub-section (2) in Section 111; (b) insertion of new Rule 62 in the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 by the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 and (c) the judgment and order dated 12.11.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Ayesha Begum vs. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C) No. 510/2020 and the resultant effect therefrom.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite, at first, to narrate the facts involved, in brief, in each of the writ petitions.

4.1. Motiur Rahman vs. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C) No. 7503/2019 and Motiur Rahman vs. State of Assam and Others, W.P. (C) No. 7705/2019: The petitioner herein participated in the Panchayat election held in the month of December, 2018 by submitting his nomination on 19.11.2018, thereby, offering his candidature for the post of President of No. 72 Bandarkona Gaon Panchayat. When the election results were declared, the petitioner was declared elected for the post of President of No. 72 Bandarkona Gaon Panchayat. A certificate dated 15.12.2018 to that effect was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj. At the time of filing his nomination i.e. on 19.11.2018, the petitioner had two living children. He was blessed with another child on 27.02.2019. After 27.02.2019, the respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 filed a complaint before the Secretary, No. 72 Bandarkona Gaon Panchayat to remove him from the post of President in view of the provision contained in Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended (‘the Panchayat Act’ for short). A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj on 12.09.2019 asking him to show-cause as to why he should not be removed from the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner had challenged the said show-cause notice dated 12.09.2019 by way of the writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 7503/2019. This Court while issuing notice of motion and directing the petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause notice dated 12.09.2019 by an order dated 03.10.2019, had provided, in the interim, not to take any adverse action against the petitioner till the returnable date. But, by the impugned order dated 03.10.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj had removed the pet