Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
Sanjib Yadav S/o Late Gouri Sankar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
ORDER :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Heard Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4; and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission for the respondent no. 2.
2. On perusal of the pleadings as well as the prayer made in the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner is making a prayer for the petitioner as well as thirty three other persons as aggrieved persons. Considering the nature and scope of a writ petition, this Court is only examining the cause espoused by the petitioner on his behalf in this writ petition.
3. The petitioner has stated that he was earlier a voter from Ward no. 1 under Lalcherra Gaon Panchayat, District – Karimganj [presently, Sri Bhumi]. After a delimitation exercise taken by the State Government, the Gaon Panchayat wards/constituencies within Lalcherra Gaon Panchayat and other Gaon Panchayats in Karimganj district have been reconstructed have been reconstituted. After the delimitation of Gaon Panchayat/wards, the final electoral roll have been published on 28.12.2024. In the electoral roll so published,
The court emphasized the necessity for timely consideration of electoral roll representations, ensuring adherence to relevant records and laws.
The court emphasized that family members residing in the same household must be included in the Electoral Roll, and arbitrary deletion of names is subject to rectification by competent authorities.
Delimitation Commission may rectify inadvertent errors under Section 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; legal boundaries determined by the Commission are binding.
Grievances regarding electoral roll discrepancies can lead to closure of writ petitions if effectively redressed by authorities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if objections were invited, raised, and rejected by the relevant authority, the court cannot entertain the challenge to the delimitation of Pa....
Judicial review in electoral delimitation matters is limited; objections must be timely filed, and lack of standing from petitioners prevents challenge.
The right to a hearing before deletion from electoral rolls is fundamental; statutory remedies under the Representation of the People Act must be followed prior to court intervention.
The court emphasized the principle that challenges to electoral matters, especially when elections are imminent, should not be entertained, as per Article 243-O.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
