Sanchayita Lahkar

A Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court of Justice Manish Choudhury has dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of the delimitation exercise undertaken by the State of Assam for restructuring Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats, and Zilla Parishads. The judgment arises out of Writ Petition [Civil] No. 5346/2024, filed by four residents under the jurisdiction of the Sonai Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC), Cachar District. The Court upheld the legality of the delimitation notifications dated 03.08.2024 and 15.10.2024.

The petitioners—Asrof Kalam Azad Laskar, Abu Siddik Laskar, Junu Babu Laskar, and Mizanur Rahman Laskar—residents of Cachar District, approached the High Court seeking to quash the delimitation notifications issued by the State of Assam. They submitted that the number of Gaon Panchayats under Sonai LAC was reduced from 24 to 18 following the final notification dated 15.10.2024, even though the number of villages within the LAC had increased from 85 to 100. The petitioners claimed that this reduction was arbitrary and adversely affected democratic representation and administrative convenience.

Also Read: Ex-Parte Defendant Can’t Lead Evidence, Only Cross-Examine; Supreme Court Sets Aside Flawed High Court Recall of 30-Year-Old Decree

It was argued that the notifications dated 03.08.2024 and 15.10.2024 were violative of Article 243C of the Constitution of India, Section 5(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) framed by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department. The petitioners contended that there was no categorization of districts prior to the delimitation as mandated under the proviso to Section 5(1) of the Assam Panchayat Act. They also contended that there was no uniformity in population ratio per Gaon Panchayat across the State as required under Article 243C(2).

The petitioners annexed demographic data to demonstrate disparities in the population-to-GP ratio before and after the delimitation and raised concerns over the restructuring's impact on marginalized groups, claiming that several areas with high concentrations of minority populations were merged or reallocated without adequate justification. The petitioners also stated alleged inconsistencies in the application of the SOP and inadequate public participation in the process.

The State of Assam, represented through the Commissioner and Secretary of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the Additional Chief Secretary, and other officials, filed a detailed affidavit-in-opposition. It was submitted that the delimitation exercise was necessitated by the Notification No. 282/AS/2023[DEL]/Vol.V dated 11.08.2023 issued by the Election Commission of India, which restructured the Legislative Assembly Constituencies in Assam. In response to the changes introduced by the ECI, the State Cabinet took a decision on 19.06.2024 directing the reorganization of Development Blocks and Panchayat areas.

In pursuance of the Cabinet decision, District Delimitation Commissions (DDCs) were constituted under Section 3A of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. At the LAC level, Task Forces were formed in accordance with Clause 7 of the SOP dated 03.08.2024. These bodies were responsible for studying existing administrative boundaries and formulating proposals for the delimitation of Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats, and Zilla Parishads. The State submitted that public hearings were conducted between 18.09.2024 and 20.09.2024 and that representations received during the hearings were duly considered before issuance of the final notification.

The State further submitted that Section 5(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act provided the legal basis for the delimitation exercise and allowed for restructuring within the districts without the need to increase the number of Gaon Panchayats. Since there was no overall increase in the number of GPs, the requirement for district categorization under Section 5(1) did not apply.

The respondents also placed on record the detailed methodology followed in finalizing the restructuring, including village-wise demographic and geographic data, minutes of Task Force meetings, and orders issued by the DDCs. It was submitted that the delimitation process was carried out in compliance with all legal, procedural, and administrative requirements.

The Court, after examining the submissions and documents placed on record, addressed the key issues raised by the petitioners. It examined the constitutional framework under Article 243C and relevant provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act.

"The only conditions that Article 243C imposes on the composition of panchayat are firstly, the ratio between the population of the territorial area of the panchayat at any level and the number of seats in the panchayat to be filled by election shall, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the State."

"It is for the Government to decide in what manner the panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area will be delimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner in which the same would be done."

Addressing the challenge based on non-categorization of districts, the Court noted:

"As the State had decided not to increase the number of Gaon Panchayats as a whole, the boundaries of the Gaon Panchayats have been restricted within the relevant districts. In view of the same, there arose no necessity to categorize the districts as per the proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 5."

The Court recorded that the petitioners did not produce comparative figures to demonstrate non-compliance with the population ratio requirement. It stated: "In absence of any materials presented by the petitioners for rebuttal, it is not for the Court to embark on any roving enquiry to find out the ratio to be maintained qua Clause [2] of Article 243C of the Constitution."

The Court considered the argument that the restructuring affected minority-dominated areas and observed: "No specific materials or statistics have been laid before this Court to establish that the restructured boundaries of the Gaon Panchayats have resulted in the denial of fair and adequate representation to any group."

On the issue of whether the SOP was properly adhered to, the Court stated:

"The deliberations of the LAC-level Task Forces and the DDCs, as recorded in the official documentation and annexures, indicate that the procedure prescribed under the SOP was followed, including public consultation and inter-departmental review."

Regarding the legal validity of the notifications, the Court noted:

"The notifications impugned in the present writ petition reflect the outcome of a structured and multi-tiered process initiated by the State Government pursuant to the restructuring of Legislative Assembly Constituencies. In absence of any demonstrable illegality or arbitrariness, the Court finds no ground to interfere."

On the question of locus standi, the Court held: "The petitioners, being residents and stakeholders of the concerned Gaon Panchayat areas, have the requisite standing to maintain the petition. However, the merits of the case do not justify judicial intervention."

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the batch of writ petitions challenging the delimitation and reorganization of Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats, Zilla Parishads, and Development Blocks in Assam.

The Court stated that "it is permissible for the State Government to adjust the extent of existing Gaon Panchayats by inclusion or exclusion of villages or local areas in the backdrop of developments, which took place due to ECI’s delimitation Order dated 11.08.2023."

Also Read: "‘Violation of Natural Justice Cannot Be Brushed Aside’: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Dismissal, Orders Compulsory Retirement with Pension for CISF Officer"

It recorded that "the issue of infringement of the petitioners’ rights associated with the delimitation process of Panchayats and election to the Panchayats have been examined by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances stated in these writ petitions and on analysis, this Court is not persuaded to hold that any of the petitioners’ rights associated with the delimitation process of Panchayats and election to the Panchayats have been seriously infringed."

The judgment also noted that "the prayers made and the directions sought for in this batch of writ petitions are not ones which can be allowed."

Finally, the Court directed that "these writ petitions are to be dismissed. It is accordingly ordered. There shall be no order as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate; Mr. A.C. Borbora, Senior Advocate; Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Mr. H.I. Choudhury, Mr. A.K. Talukdar, Mr. Bhargav Das, Ms. H. Yesmin, Mr. M.K. Hussain, Ms. S.Y. Ahmed, Ms. F.H. Ahmed, Mr. M. Alom, Mr. A.H.M.R. Choudhury, Mr. S.B. Laskar, Mr. H.A. Laskar, Ms. S. Dutta, Ms. S.K. Nargis, Mr. F.H. Laskar, Ms. S. Begum, Ms. N. Sultana, Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, Ms. B.B. Bordoloi, Mr. S. Islam, Mr. S.I. Khan, Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, Ms. S.R. Mazarbhuiya, Ms. A. Begum, Mr. B. Buragohain, Mr. N.S. Laskar, Mr. A.A. Hussain, Mr. M. Robbani, Mr. F.A. Laskar, Mr. A.S. Tapader, Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, Mr. N. Haque, Mr. K. Uddin, Mr. A.K. Azad, Mr. S.R. Barbhuiya, Mr. M. Hussain, Ms. D. Dutta, Ms. S. Das, Mr. R.I. Mondal, Mr. A.K. Mollah, Mr. R.C. Paul, Mr. A.R. Das, Mr. A.J. Atia, Ms. J. Mariyam, Ms. A.H. Atia, Mr. J. Abedin, Mr. A. Alam, Mr. M.Z. Rahman, Mr. S. Uddin, Mr. N.H. Mazarbhuiyan, Ms. L. Wajeeda, Mr. M.H. Saikia, Mr. R.I. Bhuyan, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate General, Assam; Mr. K. Konwar, Additional Advocate General, Assam and Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department; Mr. R. Dubey, Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission (ASEC).

Case Title: Asrof Kalam Azad Laskar & Others v. The State of Assam & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:4917

Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 5346 of 2024 and connected matters

Bench: Justice Manish Choudhury

[Read/Download order]