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.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Heard Mr. A.J. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 5 & 8.

2. In view of the nature of the grievances raised in this writ petition and the instructions placed by Mr. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioners, nineteen in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that they have a common cause of action to espouse.

4. The petitioners have stated that they are residents of the same locality, that is, Village – Purbo Bazaricherra Kitte, P.O. & P.S. – Bazaricherra, District – Sribhumi [earlier, Karimganj]. The petitioners have stated that for a long period of time, they have been casting their votes in both State Legislative Assembly Elections and/or Parliamentary Elections by virtue of enrolment of their names as voters in the electoral rolls. The petitioners have claimed they had cast their votes in the previous elections to the State Legislative Assembly and/or the Parliament as the voters from No. 125 Patharkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], District – Sribhumi [earlier, Karimganj]. The petitioners were issued Elector Photo Identity Cards [EPICs].

5. Mr. Atia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have come to learn that in the electoral rolls published after the recent exercise of Special Revision initiated by the Election Commission of India, their names are not included in the electoral rolls. Mr. Atia has contended that in order to delete the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous electoral roll, such a person must be given a prior opportunity of being heard. But none of the petitioners was afforded any prior opportunity of being heard. He has, thus, contended that the respondent authorities have acted illegally and arbitrarily to delete the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls.

6. Mr. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI has submitted that ordinarily, prior to deletion of any names of a person from electoral roll, such a person is to be given a prior opportunity of being heard and any deletion of name can only be made after proper verification of facts. He has submitted that the petitioners have alleged that no prior and reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to them prior to deletion of their names from the electoral rolls. Assuming such contention of the petitioner is correct, then the petitioners have a statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [‘the R.P. Act, 1950’, for short] and thereafter, appeals under Section 24 of the R.P. Act, 1950. Instead of availing such statutory remedy, the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. He has contended that since the matter of eligibility of the petitioners to be enrolled or continued as voters would require determination of certain factual questions, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

7. When the writ petition was moved on 16.03.2026, Mr. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI was asked to obtain instructions whether the names of the petitioners are enrolled in the final Electoral Roll published for Patharkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC] after the Special Revision by today.

8. As per sub-section [3] of Section 21 of the R.P. Act, 19