Assam HC Upholds Panchayat Member’s Disqualification After Third Child With Second Wife Was Born During His Term

In brief

The question

1. Whether the District Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 111 and Rule 62 to determine a disqualification alleged to have been incurred after the petitioner’s election.

The court held

The Court held that the District Commissioner had jurisdiction to determine the petitioner’s post-election disqualification and that the petitioner’s marital circumstances did not negate the disqualification arising from having more than two children.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and vacated the interim order.

01Facts

The petitioner was elected Ward Member of 73 No. Moritchar Gaon Panchayat after his nomination was accepted on 11 April 2025.

¶ 1–5, 14–16

His third child was born on 4 June 2025.

¶ 1–5, 14–16

Following a complaint alleging that he had more than two children and lacked the required educational qualification, the District Commissioner, acting under Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, declared him disqualified and treated the seat as vacant.

¶ 1–5, 14–16

The petitioner challenged that order.

¶ 1–5, 14–16

He had received notice and replied that the third child was born to his second wife after his divorce from his first wife.

¶ 1–5, 14–16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the District Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 111 and Rule 62 to determine a disqualification alleged to have been incurred after the petitioner’s election.

¶ 6–15

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was disqualified because his third child was born to his second wife after his divorce from his first wife.

¶ 16–17

iii.3. Whether the petitioner’s challenge based on an alleged lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard warranted relief.

¶ 16

03Law Applied

Article 243F of the Constitution permits the State Legislature to provide by law for determining questions of Panchayat-member disqualification, while Article 243-O requires challenges to Panchayat elections to be brought by election petition in the prescribed manner.

¶ 7–8

Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act prescribes disqualifications for Panchayat membership, and Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 provides the procedure for dealing with them.

¶ 5–6

As explained in Minu Begum v. State of Assam, WA No. 174/2026, decided 8 June 2026, a challenge founded on a disqualification existing when nomination was filed concerns the validity of the election and must be pursued by election petition; Rule 62 does not give the District Commissioner parallel jurisdiction over that dispute. A disqualification incurred during the member’s tenure is distinct.

¶ 10–13

The Court further held that Section 111 does not distinguish between children born of different partners or marriages.

¶ 17

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 Section 111 Section 129

04Reasoning

The Court treated the case as involving a post-election disqualification, not a challenge to the petitioner’s eligibility when he filed his nomination. The third child was born after the petitioner was notified as elected; accordingly, the District Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 111 read with Rule 62 to determine the alleged disqualification.

¶ 14–15

The petitioner’s explanation that the child was born to his second wife after his divorce did not avoid disqualification, because Section 111 makes no such distinction.

¶ 16–17

The fair-hearing objection also failed: the petitioner had received notice and responded to it.

¶ 16