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) 703

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Gulai Bibi, W/o - LT. Jahir Ali - Petitioner  
Versus 
The Election Commission Of India Represented By The Chief Election Commissioner And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/1680 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

Aggrieved individuals must exhaust statutory remedies under the law governing electoral rolls before seeking judicial intervention, as disputes involving factual verification, such as name deletion, must be adjudicated by the designated registration authority with a provided right to appeal.

Headnote:(A) Electoral Law - 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 - Statutory requirements of notice and opportunity of being heard - Before any deletion of a name from the electoral roll, the concerned authority must provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and verify the facts - Where such statutory remedies are available, bypassing the hierarchy of appeals through writ petitions is improper - Aggrieved persons must first exhaust the statutory remedies of application for inclusion and subsequent appeals provided under the governing legislation before seeking judicial review. (Paras 9, 11, 12, 17)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Alternative remedy - Writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked when an efficacious, adequate, and statutory remedy is available through the prescribed administrative hierarchy, especially when the matter involves disputed questions of fact that require verification. (Paras 9, 20)

Facts of the case:
Seventeen petitioners sought the intervention of the court alleging the arbitrary deletion of their names from the electoral rolls, claiming that no notice or opportunity of being heard was provided as required by law. During the proceedings, it was clarified that fifteen petitioners had their names included, while the names of two others were deleted due to claims of permanent migration. The petitioners sought restoration of their names, while the authorities contended that the appropriate procedure involves filing an application under the established statutory framework.

Findings of Court:
Upon evaluating the statutory mandates, the court noted that the process for including or correcting names in electoral rolls is clearly defined. Since the petitioners have not exhausted the statutory remedies for challenging the deletion of names, the court directed them to file appropriate applications before the designated authority, which must be considered in accordance with the prescribed legal timeline.

Issues: Whether the court should exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the inclusion of names in the electoral roll where specific statutory procedures for inclusion and appeal are already provided, and whether the alleged lack of notice for deletion warrants direct judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that electoral authorities must follow due process, including providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deleting names. However, because the legislation provides a complete mechanism for addressing grievances—including applications for inclusion and subsequent appeals—the court declined to bypass these statutory routes, emphasizing that the availability of such efficacious remedies makes a writ petition premature.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to approach the jurisdictional authority for adjudication of claims per statutory provisions.

Table of Content
1. factual basis for electoral roll discrepancy and petition origin. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conflict between right to franchise and alternative statutory remedy availability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 18)
3. statutory mechanisms and procedural requirements under the rp act for electoral amendment. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court mandate to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 19 , 20)

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 – N/S. 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. 179 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. 179. 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 out of the seventeen nos. of petitioners, save and except the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 14, the remaining fifteen nos. of petitioners’ names are included in the Electoral Roll and they can exercise right to franchise in the General Election. The names of the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 14 are deleted from the Electoral Roll on the ground that they have permanently shifted from the

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