Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.) disposed of a batch of writ petitions arising out of the Assam Panchayat Election, 2025. Following its earlier judgment in Aysha Khatun (WP(C) No.7351/2025, 2026:GAU-AS:2734), the Court held: (i) where a disqualification under Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 existed at the time of filing of the nomination paper, failure to catch it at scrutiny is a case of improper acceptance of nomination, forming part of the election process, challengeable only by an election petition presented within 60 days before the Panchayat Election Tribunal under Section 129 of the Act of 1994 read with Article 243-O of the Constitution; (ii) the District Commissioner can neither assume jurisdiction suo motu without a reference in the manner prescribed under Rule 62(4)(c) nor decide a disqualification existing at the nomination stage, any such exercise amounting to intermeddling with the election process and usurpation of the Election Tribunal's jurisdiction; (iii) the writ petitions seeking action against allegedly disqualified returned candidates (educational qualification, underage marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, more than two children) were misconceived and dismissed; (iv) the disqualification orders dated 09.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon in WP(C) No.5773/2025 and WP(C) No.5815/2025, passed without hearing, were set aside and quashed with consequential actions; and (v) the writ of quo warranto sought against the President of 26 No. Sukchar Gaon Panchayat was refused, the disqualification allegation being a disputed question of fact not adjudicable under Article 226, and the relief amounting to doing indirectly what is prohibited directly in absence of an election petition. Reliance placed on N.P. Ponnuswami, Mohinder Singh Gill, Consumer Education & Research Society, DMK v. State of Tamil Nadu, State of Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Madden v. Nelson and Fort Sheppard Rly. Co.
