When a specific statutory mechanism is provided for the correction and inclusion of entries in electoral rolls, a writ petition is not maintainable until the petitioner has exhausted available administrative and appellate remedies, as such issues require factual verification best resolved by the designated statutory authorities.

ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. S. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 6; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10.

2. The petitioners, 154 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 stated that they are residents of villages adjacent to each other, namely, No. 3 Rajapukhuri, Saharia Pam, Gelajan, Naojan, No. 2 Dalanipathar, Dalanipathar, Madhyapathar, under Uriamghat, District – Golaghat, 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 enrolment 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 to the State Legislative Assembly and/or Parliament as the voters from No. 107 Sarupathar Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], District - Golaghat, Assam. All the petitioners were issued Electors Photo Identity Cards [EPICs] by the Election Commission of India.

4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have come to learn that in the electoral rolls published after the recent exercise of Special Revision initiated by the Election Commission of India [ECI], the word ‘deleted’ are marked against the names of the petitioners. Meaning thereby, their names are not included in the electoral rolls and they will 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.

5. Mr. Bhuyan has contended that in order to delete the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous electoral roll, 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. Mr. Bhuyan has further submitted that the deletion of the names of the petitioners is perhaps attributable to an eviction drive carried out during the month of September, 2025 in and around Uriamghat area in Golaghat district where the petitioners have been residing for a long period of time exercising their right to franchise. The respondent authorities in the State Government had carried out an eviction drive in and around Uriamghat area on the ground that the area comes under forest areas of Nambor Reserve Forest and Doyang Reserve Forest. As there is restriction / prohibition for acquiring status of landowner in reserved forest areas declared under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1887, the petitioners were unjustifiably brought within the purview of the eviction drive. The petitioners have claimed that their places of residence do not fall within the boundaries of the two reserved forests.

6. It is contended that a number of litigation ensued against the eviction exercise carried by the State authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Abdul Khalek and others vs. the State of Assam and others , 2026 INSC