Courts should not exercise writ jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing election processes, as the constitutional framework mandates such disputes be resolved through statutory petitions after elections conclude. Agencies must, however, provide written reasons for nomination rejections at the time of scrutiny to ensure transparency and potential legal redress.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

The three writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against rejection of two nomination papers and acceptance of one nomination paper, submitted to contest in the Assam Panchayat General Election, scheduled to be held in two phases on 02.05.2025 and 07.05.2025 respectively.

2. All the three writ petitions, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involve similar nature of issues.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed urgency and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents have raised a preliminary point of non- maintainability of the writ petitions. Therefore, all the three writ petitions are taken up together first for consideration on the preliminary point, at the instance of the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Though facts pleaded in the writ petitions are not required to be narrated in detail for considering the preliminary point, but, in order to appreciate the preliminary point involved in the writ petitions, the relevant facts involved in each of the writ petitions are required to be exposited, atleast briefly.

5. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 2178/2025, two writ petitioners have joined together to assail the acceptance of the nomination of the party-respondent no. 6, impleaded therein. The petitioners have projected that the petitioner no. 1 is a former president of Kathalguri Gaon Panchayat and his tenure expired in February, 2024. The petitioner no. 2 has aspired to be a Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward no. 1 [Buralikson Gaon] under Kathalguri Gaon Panchayat and for the purpose of contesting the election from the said ward, the petitioner no. 2 submitted her nomination paper within the prescribed date of submission of nomination paper before the Authorized Officer of Golaghat district. As per the Notification dated 02.04.2025 published by the Assam State Election Commission [ASEC], the last date of filing nominations, for the first phase, was 11.04.2025. The date for scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed on 12.04.2025. It is a case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 6 had also submitted his nomination paper to contest the election from the same ward as the petitioner no. 2. The petitioners have claimed that the nomination paper of the respondent no. 6 ought not to have been accepted by the officer authorized to accept the nomination papers. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 6 suffers disqualification under Section 111[1][e] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended [‘the Assam Panchayat Act’, for short], as he is an owner of an IMFL shop. The respondent no. 6 has been running the IMFL shop after entering into an agreement with the Government under the Assam Excise Act, 2000. In addition, the respondent no. 6 is also a registered vendor under the Panchayat authorities to supply various materials. With such projections, the writ petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the nomination paper of the respondent no. 6, accepted to contest the election for the post of Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward no.1 [Buralikson Gaon] under 35 no. Kathalguri Gaon Panchayat, Golaghat.

6. In the writ petition W.P.[C] no. 2186/2025, the petitioner submitt