District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to decide pre-existing Panchayat disqualifications; challenge lies through an election petition.

The petitioner contested for Ward Member from Ward No. 6 of 45 No. Bhalukdubi Gaon Panchayat and was declared elected on 7 May 2025 after securing 234 votes

A complaint was filed alleging that she had violated the prescribed legal age for marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and had filed a false affidavit with her nomination papers

Following an inquiry, an Executive Magistrate reported that the petitioner had been below 18 years of age at the time of the birth of her first child and that the alleged disqualification existed when she submitted her nomination paper

On 16 July 2025, the District Commissioner, Goalpara, removed her from office under Rule 62(4)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024

The petitioner challenged the removal, contending, inter alia, that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that the order violated natural justice

Whether the District Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide and remove the petitioner for a disqualification that allegedly existed on the date of submission of her nomination paper.

Whether the impugned removal order was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner’s case was governed by the principles laid down in Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Others .

The Court applied Article 243F of the Constitution, which prescribes disqualifications for being chosen as, and for continuing as, a member of a Panchayat.

It relied on Sections 111, 114 and 129 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, read with the relevant Panchayat Rules, concerning disqualification, the State Election Commission, and the statutory bar and remedy relating to Panchayat elections.

The Court followed Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Others , 2026 (3) GLT 102, and Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder v. State of Assam & 6 Others , 2026:GAU-AS:3725, holding that where a disqualification existed when the nomination paper was filed, the issue concerns improper acceptance of the nomination and forms part of the election process.

Such a challenge must be brought through an election petition before the competent Election Tribunal within 60 days from declaration of the result; the District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate that disqualification.

The Court also held that the removal order was contrary to natural justice because the inquiry report and the impugned order were made on the same date, 16 July 2025, without adequate procedural opportunity.

The alleged disqualification arose from circumstances predating the petitioner’s nomination and therefore existed at the time she submitted her nomination paper.

Under the principles drawn from Aysha Khatun and Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder , such a challenge concerns the alleged improper acceptance of the nomination and consequently falls within the election-dispute mechanism, rather than the District Commissioner’s administrative jurisdiction.

Since the District Commissioner could not determine the validity of the petitioner’s candidature after the election on that ground, the removal order was without jurisdiction.

Independently, the procedure was defective because the Executive Magistrate’s report and the removal order were issued on the same day, indicating that the petitioner was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to contest the adverse material, thereby violating natural justice.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the removal order dated 16 July 2025, together with all consequential actions taken pursuant to it, was set aside and quashed.

No order as to costs was made.