SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 347

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Aysha Khatun W/o. Surut Zamal - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 7351 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N.H. Laskar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. J. Handique, Govt. Advocate Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel Mr. R. Dubey, Standing Counsel

The District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to remove a Panchayat member based solely on disqualification claims; such matters must be handled through an election petition post-election results, adhering strictly to legal procedures.

Headnote:(A) Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Section 111(1)(f) and 111(2)(f) - Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 - Removal of member from Gaon Panchayat - Procedure and authority for removal examined - District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and authority to remove member without a proper reference and due process - The legality of the order relates to disqualification at the time of election and must be challenged through an election petition, not by an administrative order. (Paras 76 and 80)

(B) Jurisdiction of Election Commission - Authority cannot assume jurisdiction without a reference as mandated by law - Election process and disqualification matters must be addressed through established legal avenues and cannot be circumvented. (Paras 74 and 80)

(C) Election Petition - Grounds for challenging election results must be presented within prescribed timelines, reinforcing that election disputes are to be resolved through judicial means as mandated by law. (Paras 58 and 66)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was removed from her position as a member of a Gaon Panchayat by the District Commissioner based on allegations of a marital disqualification under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, without a fair hearing or statutory basis for such action. The petitioner contended that the removal was procedurally flawed and based on assumptions about her date of marriage and circumstantial evidence regarding her children, rather than authoritative proof from statutory documents like birth certificates.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without a proper reference and that the removal order was unconstitutional, lacking a proper legal basis.

Issues: The primary issues involved the authority of the District Commissioner to remove a Panchayat member based on allegations of disqualification and procedural adherence in administrative actions regarding such disqualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disqualification issues arising post-election must be referred to the appropriate authority and cannot be summarily adjudicated by the District Commissioner in the absence of a legal basis, reinforcing the importance of electoral laws and procedures.

Result: The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside and quashed, along with all consequential actions.

Table of Content
1. factual basis of the petitioner's claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. court's observations on procedural issues and authority. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 21)
3. petitioner's argument against jurisdiction and validity of disqualification. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. legal framework governing disqualification for panchayat membership. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. final order to quash the impugned decision. (Para 80 , 81)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. N.H. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the District Administration and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department. Mr. R. Dubey, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2.

PREFACE

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 (2)(f) [wrongly written in the impugned order as (1)(f)] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act of 1994”), as well as Rule 62(4)(b) & (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, “the Rules of 1995”), the Petitioner was removed from the 5 No. Sardarvita Tarangapur GP Ward Constituency under the Tarangapur Gaon Panchayat of Jaleswar Anchalik Panchayat.

THE CONSPECTUS OF FACTS

3. The Petitioner herein claims that she was born on 03.01.1996 to one Afzal Hoque of Village Kulamuya Choto Nichinpur, P.S. Fakirganj, in the district of Dhubri. The Petitioner appeared in the HSLC Examination in 2012 from Kulamuya Nichinpur High School under the Assam Board of Secondary Education. The Petitioner was issued an HSLC admit card wherein her date of birth was recorded as 03.01.1996. In the registration card, her date of birth was also recorded as 03.01.1996, and in the HSLC certificate issued by the concerned High School, her date of birth was also recorded as 03.01.1996. Be that as it may, it is very pertinent to take note of the fact that in the High School Leaving Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the Petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1996.

4. It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 05.01.2015, she married one Surat Zamal, son of Habibar Rahman of Tarangapur P.S., Lakhipur, in the district of Goalpara, as per Islamic rites and rituals. The Kabinnama has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, wherein the Petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 03.01.1996 and the date of marriage as 05.01.2015.

5. The Petitioner further stated that out of the said wedlock, a daughter and a son were born. The elder child, namely Ms. Sultana Parvin, was born on 06.11.2015, and the younger child namely Master Akhiruz Zamal was born on 13.11.2017. The birth Certificates were enclosed as Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the last Panchayat elections held in the State of Assam in the year 2025, the Petitioner contested the election for Gaon Panchayat Member from 5 No. Sardarvita Tarangapur Gaon Panchayat Ward Constituency under 8 No. Tarangapur Gaon Panchayat in the district of Goalpara. The election was held on 07.05.2025 and the results were declared on 11.05.2025. The Petitioner, having secured the highest number of votes, won the election and accordingly was issued the return of election as per Rule 44(7) of the Rules of 1995. The Petitioner subsequently was elected as the President of the said 8 No. Tarangapur Gaon Panchayat.

7. It is the case of the Petitioner that to her surprise, the District Commissioner, Goalpara, i.e. the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of a complaint stated to have been filed by one Sri Hakimuddin, removed the Petitioner from membership of the Gaon Panchayat under Section 111 (1)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) & (c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top