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) 701

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Moin Uddin, S/o - Late Erab Ali And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus 
The Election Commission Of India Represented By The Chief Election Commissioner And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/1720 of 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026

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

When a special statute establishes a comprehensive mechanism for the rectification of electoral records and provides for appropriate appellate remedies, a writ petition is generally not maintainable as parties are required to exhaust those efficacious statutory remedies, particularly where factual disputes regarding residential status are involved.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 21, 22, 23 and 24 - Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Rule 26 - Deletion of names from electoral rolls - Requirement of providing reasonable opportunity of being heard - Statutory remedies for inclusion and appeal - Writ jurisdiction - Barred where efficacious statutory alternatives exist. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 15, 16)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Existence of statutory remedy - Where a petitioner has an adequate and effective remedy available under a special statute for grievances related to electoral rolls, the Court will not entertain a writ petition, as matters of factual enquiry into residency are better suited for resolution by designated statutory authorities. (Paras 6, 8, 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners alleged their names were removed from the electoral roll without notice or a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby preventing them from exercising their right to franchise in upcoming elections. The respondent argued that the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding the residency of the petitioners and maintained that the petitioners should follow the established statutory procedure for re-inclusion of their names.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the legislation provides a comprehensive, adequate, and efficacious mechanism for addressing grievances concerning the electoral process, including a specific procedure for inclusions, corrections, and appeals. The court determined that it would not be appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction when such specialized statutory remedies remain unexhausted.

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the deletion of names from the electoral roll and whether the court should permit a bypass of the established statutory appellate process in favor of direct judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a complete self-contained framework for the rectification of electoral records, including specific appellate channels, parties must exhaust those administrative remedies. The court held that judicial intervention via a writ petition is not permitted when factual disputes regarding residency require investigations best suited for designated statutory officers.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to file applications for inclusion before the jurisdictional authority in accordance with the statutory framework.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioners' grievance regarding electoral roll exclusion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding arbitrary deletion and procedural fairness. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. statutory framework regarding enrollment, correction, and appeals. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. exhaustion of statutory remedies is mandatory before writ intervention. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. directs petitioners to follow statutory procedure under r.p. act. (Para 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, fifty-nine 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 – Kanakpur, Post Office – Manikbond, 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. 202 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. 202. 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 25.03.2026, 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 from the areas which fall under 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,

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