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) 706

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Chaira Begum W/O- Hussain Ali And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus 
The Election Commission Of India Represented By The Chief Election Commissioner And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C)/1703 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

Where a statutory mechanism exists to address disputes regarding voter registration and the deletion of entries, individuals must exhaust those administrative remedies, including appeals, before invoking the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly when the resolution requires the determination of disputed factual questions such as residential status.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 21, 22, 23, and 24 - Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Rule 26 - Deletion of name from electoral roll - Requirement of notice and hearing prior to deletion - Existence of alternative statutory remedies - Maintainability of writ petition. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Availability of alternative statutory remedy - When a statutory mechanism for grievance redressal exists, such as filing an application for inclusion of name and subsequent appeals, parties must exhaust these remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners alleged their names were arbitrarily deleted from electoral rolls without receiving notice or an opportunity to be heard, despite being long-term residents. They sought relief from the Court to restore their names.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that the law mandates a prior opportunity to be heard before deleting names from the electoral roll. However, as the dispute involves factual verification regarding residence and eligibility, the petitioners must exhaust the alternative statutory remedies provided under the legislation.

Issues: Whether the Court should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies for the inclusion of names in the electoral rolls remain unexhausted, and the necessity of determining disputed factual questions through established administrative channels.

Ratio Decidendi: Given the presence of adequate and efficacious statutory remedies and the requirement for fact-finding procedures, the Court held that it will not entertain a direct writ petition, instructing the parties to follow the prescribed administrative and appellate channels to resolve disputes concerning electoral registration.

Result: Petition disposed of with liberty to the parties to pursue their statutory remedies for name inclusion.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioners and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. disputed electoral deletion and availability of statutory remedies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. exhaustion of statutory remedies under r.p. act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court directions for filing statutory applications post-election. (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, thirteen 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 – Hatairbond, 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. 191 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. 191. 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 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. 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, that is, within the territorial limits of 125 Patherkandi LAC and the respondent authorities have acted illegally and arbitrarily to delete the name

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