GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON ELIZA BEGUM V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

GUWAHATI, India, Aug. 8 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on July 10:

1. Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P and RD for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5, 8 & 10; Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 4, 6, 7 & 9.

2. This writ petition has challenged the impugned Order dated 02.07.2025 issued by the District Commissioner, Morigaon, whereby, the petitioner who was elected as a Member of Ward no. 9 of Dhumkura GP was disqualified and removed as Ward Member of the Dhumkura GP. The seat which was held by the petitioner was directed to be kept vacant henceforth.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order was passed in terms of the amendment brought to the Assam Panchayat Act by Notification dated 19.10.2023, where under Section 111 of the said Act, Section 111(2)(f) was inserted, which reads as under :- "(f) who either by himself or herself or his or her spouse has violated the legal age of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amendment was brought into the Act only on 19.10.2023 whereas the petitioner was married of on 15.09.2013 and out of the marriage a child was born to the petitioner on 06.11.2014. It is therefore submitted that this new amendment of the Act cannot be applied to cases like that of the petitioner who had already married prior to the insertion of the new amendment held on 19.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amendment has to be made effective prospectively as no such reference is seen in the amendment that it shall have an effect retrospectively is found on a plain reading of the amendment brought in. Under such circumstances, the impugned Order dated 02.07.2025 issued by the District Commissioner, Morigaon that the petitioner has been disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) is contrary to the provisions of the Act itself and was passed on wrong interpretation of the amendment inserted. He, therefore, submits that this impugned Order be inferred with and set aside and the petitioner's position as a elected Member be restored in the Dhumkura GP. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, adequate interim protection be granted.

6. Learned counsel representing the Election Commission, respondent no. 3, Mr. Dubey submits that there is no illegality in the interpretation made by the District Commissioner, Morigaon while issuing the impugned Order. The amendment in the Act is made effective only from 19.10.2023, however, the amendment made in the Act is very clear that it will operate as a disqualification if a candidate is found to have violated the legal age of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Since the petitioner has admittedly violated the said provision, the petitioner will be disqualified. Similarly, submission is also made by the counsel representing the Panchayat & Rural Development Department.

7. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the respondents be permitted to complete their instructions and file necessary affidavits, if so advised, in the meantime.

8. Issue notice, returnable in 2 (two) weeks.

9. As Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P and RD has appeared and accepted notices for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5, 8 & 10; Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission has appeared and accepted notice for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. Roy, learned Government Advocate has appeared and accepted notices for the respondent nos. 4, 6, 7 & 9, formal notices need not be issued to the said respondents. Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Dutta, Mr. Dubey and Mr. Roy within 2 (two) working days from today.

10. Let the matter be listed again after 2 (two) weeks on a fixed date by the Registry. Till the next date fixed, the respondent authority will not endeavour to fill up the positions of Ward Member held by the petitioner, without view of the Court.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.