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) 698

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Arbi Bibi, W/o - Najib Ali - Petitioner  
Versus 
The Election Commisison Of India Represented By The Chief Election Commissioner – Respondent
WP(C)/1666 of 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S B Laskar, Ms D Dutta, Mr. H A Laskar
For the Respondent: Sc, Eci, Ga, Assam

When a comprehensive statutory framework exists for the correction or inclusion of names in electoral rolls, a writ petition is not maintainable unless the petitioner first exhausts the prescribed administrative remedies and appellate procedures, as such matters involve factual determinations best suited for the designated statutory authorities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 22, 23 and 24 - Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Rule 26 - Election Law - Deletion of names from electoral roll - Requirement of prior opportunity of being heard - Statutory remedy - Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies - Writ jurisdiction - Where statutes provide specific procedures for the correction, inclusion, or restoration of entries in electoral rolls and establish an appellate hierarchy, constitutional courts should ordinarily require the exhaustion of these statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly when the matter requires the determination of factual disputes regarding residency and registration status. (Paras 11, 16, 19)

(B) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Alternative remedy - An aggrieved party alleging arbitrary removal of name from the voter list must pursue the prescribed administrative application and appellate process rather than bypassing these forums. Failure to follow the legislative framework renders a direct constitutional challenge premature when the statutory authorities have the power to grant effective relief and are mandated to provide reasons for any rejection of such applications. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
Multiple individuals sought judicial intervention after finding their names excluded from the updated electoral rolls without being granted a prior opportunity to be heard. They asserted they remained residents within their respective constituency. The authorities argued that the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding residence and that the petitioners had to follow the statutory procedures for inclusion instead of directly approaching the high court.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that the governing legislation strictly mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any deletion of a name from an electoral roll. It reaffirmed that, while the actions of the authorities were subject to scrutiny, the existence of efficacious statutory remedies—specifically application for inclusion and subsequent appeals to designated administrative officers—precluded the necessity of direct judicial intervention. The court held that such factual determinations must be handled by the specialized administrative forums created by law.

Issues: Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to address the removal of names from electoral rolls, and whether the petitioners are bound to exhaust available statutory remedies before seeking judicial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial restraint is warranted when a statute provides a comprehensive mechanism for redressal. Since the legislative framework permits the aggrieved to file for inclusion and provides a structured appellate process, the court directed the petitioners to utilize these channels to ensure that factual claims are verified by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed timeline and procedure.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to approach the appropriate jurisdictional officer.

Table of Content
1. requirement for fair procedure and opportunity of being heard in electoral roll deletions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. statutory remedies under r.p. act sections 22, 23, and 24 take precedence over writ petitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. disposal of writ petition directing parties to exhaust statutory appellate remedies after election completion. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. H.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. G. Bokalial, learned Junior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioners, seventeen 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.

3. The petitioners have claimed that they are residents of Village – Old Solamona, Post Office – Kotamoni Bazar, Pin – 788728, District – Sribhumi, Assam. 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 enrollment of their names as voters in the concerned Electoral Rolls, published from time to time. The petitioners have claimed that they had cast their votes in the previous elections in both State Legislative Assembly Elections and/or Parliamentary Elections as the voters from 125 No. Patherkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], District – Sribhumi, Assam. All the petitioners were issued Electoral Photo Identity Cards [EPICs] by the Election Commission of India [ECI].

4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that during the process of Special Revision of Electoral Rolls, 2026 carried out in the State of Assam, house to house verification of voters was carried out and thereafter, a draft Electoral Roll was published on 27.12.2025 inviting claims and objections from eligible voters. After disposal of the claims and objections on 02.02.2026, the final Electoral Roll for the year 2026 was published on 10.02.2026 for Polling Station no. 177 under 125 No. Patherkandi LAC. He has submitted that the names of the petitioners were enlisted in the final Electoral Roll published on 10.02.2026 in respect of Polling Station no. 177. But the petitioners, to their surprise, have found that their names are not traceable in the official portal maintained by the ECI.

5. Mr. Laskar has submitted that as their names are not included in the Electoral Rolls, the petitioners would be prevented from exercising the right to franchise in the upcoming Legislative Assembly Election in Assam where the date, 09.04.2026 has been notified as the date of polling. He has further contended that the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous Electoral Roll and also found in the Electoral Roll published on 10.02.2026 could not have been deleted from the Electoral Roll and before such deletion, 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.

6. When the writ petition was moved on 23.03.2026, Ms. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, ECI was requested to obtain instructions as to whether the names of the petitioners are enrolled in the official electoral database maintained by the ECI. Today, Ms. Kataki has submitted, upon receipt of instructions, that as per the records maintained by the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, the petitioners’ names have been deleted from the Electoral Roll on the ground that they have permanently shifted areas which fall under from the 125 Patherkandi LAC.

7. The petitioners have canvassed that the petitioners are still continuing to reside in the addresses, as recorded in the EPICs and mentioned above, that is, within the territorial limits of 125 Patherkandi LA

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