##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010047422026 2026:GAU-AS:4711-

DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/95/2026

ELOWARA KHATUN (PRESIDENT OF 91 NO. AG-MANDIA JADAVPUR GAON PANCHAYAT), W/O

HASINUR AHMED, VILLAGE- MOURIPAM, P.O- MANDIA, P.S- BAGHBOR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM- 781308

VERSUS

SHAHIDA AHMED AND 7 ORS.

W/O MUSLIM UDDIN, VILLAGE- AG- MANDIA, P.O- MANDIA, P.S AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM, PIN-781308

2:MAHIBUL HOQUE S/O OSMAN ALI VILLAGE GUPALPUR

P.O- POHUMARA P.S- BAGHBOR DIST- BARPETA

ASSAM PIN-781308

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST- BARPETA

ASSAM PIN-784176

Page No.# 2/7

5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHENGA REVENUE CIRCLE (AUTHORISED OFFICER)

P.O.- CHENGA P.S.- BARPETA

DIST- BARPETA ASSAM

6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GUMAFULBARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

P.S.- TARABARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM

7:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037

8:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICE BARPETA DIST- BARPETA

ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, P. GHOSH,MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED,MR. A M AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R ALI (FOR CAVEATOR), SC, ASEC,SC, P AND R.D.,GA, ASSAM,MR H A AHMED (FOR CAVEATOR)

BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

01-04-2026 (AD Choudhury, J)

1. The present appeal raises a question of some significance, relating

Page No.# 3/7

to electoral fairness and statutory discipline, namely, whether a vote validly cast can be invalidated on an alleged breach of secrecy attributed to the elector in the absence of any expressed statutory

prescription to that effect.

2. The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed in WP(C) 5320/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Barpeta, cancelling the vote of the writ

petitioner No. 2.

3. The fact lies in a narrow compass.

4. In the election to the office of President of 91 No. Agmandia Jadavpur Gaon Panchayat, the respondent No.1 and the

appellant secured 5 votes each, resulting in a tie.

5. Thus, the vote cast by the respondent No. 2 assumed determinative significance.

6. The said vote, however, was cancelled by the District Commissioner on the grounds that, while casting the vote, a flashlight was observed, leading to the inference that the ballot may have been

photographed, thereby breaching secrecy.

7. Consequent upon such cancellation, the appellant came to be declared elected, which was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1

and 2 before the learned Single Judge.

8. The learned Single Judge, upon a consideration of the statutory framework and the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the cancellation of the vote was not supported by

any provision of law and was based on conjectural reasoning.

9. The order of the District Commissioner was accordingly set aside,

Page No.# 4/7

and the vote restored, resulting in a tie to be resolved in accordance with the prescribed procedure mandated under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and the Assam Panchayat

(Constitution) Rules, 1995.

10. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that secrecy of the ballot is a foundational attribute of any electoral process and that any conduct undermining such secrecy must

necessarily invite invalidation, even if not specifically enumerated.

11. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that electoral rights being statutory in nature, any curtailment thereof must be traceable to an express provision and cannot be expanded

by implication.

12. The controversy must be resolved on a careful reading of the statutory scheme. Rule 46 (7) of Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, which enumerates the circumstances in which a ballot paper shall be treated as in