A District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to decide a Panchayat-member disqualification existing at nomination.

The petitioner was elected Ward Member of Ward No. 1, Mahguri Gaon Panchayat, after polling on 7 May 2025 and counting on 11 May 2025; she secured 410 votes.

Following a complaint alleging that she had married while a minor, a police case was registered under Sections 9–11 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

The District Commissioner, Nagaon, subsequently disqualified her under Section 111(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition; its operation had been stayed during the proceedings.

The Court noted that the alleged disqualification existed when she submitted her nomination papers.

Article 243F of the Constitution addresses disqualification for being chosen as, and for being, a Panchayat member; Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, governs disqualification in relation to Panchayat membership and specified office-holders.

As explained in Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder v. State of Assam & 6 Others, applying Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Others, a disqualification existing when nomination papers are filed concerns the improper acceptance of a nomination.

A challenge on that basis must be brought by election petition before the Election Tribunal within 60 days of declaration of the result; the District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to decide that disqualification.

Article 243-O of the Constitution and Section 129 of the Act concern the bar on court interference in elections, while the judgment distinguished elections conducted by the State Election Commission from elections to Panchayat President and Vice-President posts.

The Court found that the alleged disqualification related to the petitioner’s status at the time she filed her nomination papers.

Applying the principles set out in Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder, the Court treated the matter as one concerning the validity of the nomination and, consequently, the election process.

That challenge lay before the Election Tribunal by election petition, not for determination by the District Commissioner. The Commissioner therefore lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

The Court also observed that the order was passed on the date the Chief Executive Officer submitted the inquiry report, raising a natural-justice concern, but resolved the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

It allowed the writ petition to the extent of setting aside and quashing the order dated 12 November 2025 and all consequential actions; no costs were awarded.