Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Assam State Election Commission And ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010088372025
2025:GAU-AS:5556
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2236/2025
MORZINA BEGUM
W/O AMDADUL HUSSAIN, R/O VILL. FAKALI, P.O.DIGHALI, P.S.
RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, PANJABARI,
GUWAHATI 781037
2:THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
3:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ASSAM
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 37
4:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782001
5:THE ADDL. DIST COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
Page No.# 2/5
ASSAM
PIN 782001
6:SHEHNAJ MASUM AKTAR
W/O SADDAM HUSSAIN
D/O ABDUL KUDDUS
R/O VILL. ROWMARI
P.O.ROWMARI
P.S.RUPAHIHAT
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 78212
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, MR B DEORI,MR. P KONWAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM,SC, ASEC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 05.05.2025
Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Dubey, learned
Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. K.
Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General & Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural
Development Department for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5.
2. The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition challenging the acceptance of the
nomination paper of the respondent no. 6, submitted to contest the election for the post of
Member of 10 no. Bagariguri Anchalik Panchayat Constituency. The petitioner has stated that
the petitioner also submitted her nomination paper to contest for the post of Member in the
election from 10 no. Bagariguri Anchalik Panchayat Constituency. The petitioner has raised a
contention that the nomination paper of the respondent no. 6 ought not to have been
accepted by the Authorized Officer appointed to scrutinize the nomination papers and
thereafter, either to accept the nomination paper or to reject the nomination paper. The
petitioner has further submitted that the respondent no. 6 has suppressed certain material
Page No.# 3/5
facts in her nomination paper.
3. Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission and Mr.
Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General & Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural
Development Department have both submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, at this stage, challenging acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper of a
contesting candidate is not to be entertained as the petitioner has the option of presenting an
election petition before the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under
Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act and a writ petition is clearly barred under Article
243O [b] of the Constitution read with Section 129 [b] of the Assam Panchayat Act. They
have conjointly submitted that the issue has already been decided in a common Judgment &
Order dated 29.04.2025 passed in writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 2178/2025 [Ranjan Gogoi and
another vs. State of Assam and others] and two other writ petitions.
4. In Ranjan Gogoi [supra], this Court has inter-alia observed as under :-
44. Thus, the consistent principle which has emerged is that the term,
'election' is interpreted broadly to include all steps and proceedings
commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of
declaration of results. The submission of nomination papers, scrutiny of
nomination papers, acceptance of nomination papers and rejection of
nomination papers are all intermediate stages in an election process.
Improper acceptance of nomination paper of a candidate, who has
ultimately been elected, would allow a rival contesting candidate to
present an election petition before the jurisdictional Election Tribunal
and the same may lead to setting aside of the result of the elected
candidate. Similarly, improper rejection of nomination paper of a
candidate is a ground to present an election petition for a contesting
candidate. Once the process of election starts in the wider sense, then
it is of utmost priority that the process of election is concluded
according to the time-schedule. Any controversy or dispute arising at
Page No.# 4/5
the intermediate stages can be postponed for decision till after the
election process is over so as to ensure an uninterrupted election
adhering to the time-schedule and so that the process of election is not
protracted. Conduct of election to the Panchayats is of paramount
importance in a democracy and the process is arduous and time-
taking. There is involvement of huge manpower and resources.
Interference in the intermediate stages of the election process is not
ordinarily called for unless an exceptional case is made out, that too,
when such interference is called for to promote the election process. It
is only in a case where the wrong done during the intermediate stage
cannot be undone after the end of the election process, the court can
examine the question taking primarily into consideration the factors like
the facts and circumstances of the case, whether such interference
would interrupt or postpone the ongoing process of election or would
facilitate a better process of election.
45. The above view is guided by the analysis done by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar
and others, reported in [2000] 8 SCC 216, where the Hon'ble Court
after analyzing the two Constitution Bench decisions in Ponnuswami
[supra] and Mohinder Singh Gill [supra], has summed up to the effect
that if an election [the term election being widely interpreted so as to
include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of
notification of election till the date of declaration of result] is to be called
in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting,
obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the
invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing
of proceedings in elections.
5. As the issue raised in this writ petition is fully covered by the common Judgment &
Page No.# 5/5
Order dated 29.04.2025, rendered in W.P.[C.] no. 2178/2025 and the petitioner has the
option of presenting a election petition before the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal
after declaration of the results as a contesting candidate, the writ petition is not entertained.
6. It is clarified that non-entertainment of the writ petition on the aforesaid ground, shall
not preclude the petitioner as a contesting candidate to present an election petition before
the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal within the stipulated period of limitation, as
regards the point of acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent no. 6.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
