Pre-existing disqualification at nomination must be challenged through an election petition, not departmental proceedings.

The petitioner contested the election for Ward Member of Ward No. 7 (Borguli) of Lalpool Gaon Panchayat pursuant to the Assam State Election Commission’s notification dated 03.04.2025.

Respondent No. 8 also contested, and the election was held on 07.05.2025. Respondent No. 8 was declared elected on 14.05.2025.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 8 was disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, on the ground that his spouse was underage at the time of marriage.

The petitioner approached the District Commissioner seeking initiation of disqualification proceedings against the returned candidate, but no action was taken.

The writ petition challenged the alleged inaction of the District Commissioner.

Whether the alleged disqualification of the returned candidate, existing at the time of submission and acceptance of the nomination paper, could be determined by the District Commissioner through disqualification proceedings.

Whether improper acceptance of the nomination on account of a pre-existing disqualification could be challenged only through an election petition before the competent Election Tribunal within the prescribed period of 60 days.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing the District Commissioner to initiate proceedings against the returned candidate.

The Court applied Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, concerning disqualification for election to a Panchayat office.

Relying on Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Others, (2026) 3 GLT 102, the Court held that where a candidate is disqualified on the date of the election or submission of the nomination paper, but the nomination is nevertheless accepted, the matter constitutes improper acceptance of nomination.

Since improper acceptance forms part of the election process, it must be challenged by an election petition before the Election Tribunal within 60 days from the declaration of the election result.

The District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a disqualification that existed at the time of election.

The petitioner’s allegation concerned a disqualification allegedly existing before and at the time Respondent No. 8 submitted his nomination.

Once the nomination paper was accepted and Respondent No. 8 was declared elected, any challenge based on that alleged pre-existing disqualification became a challenge to the propriety of the nomination and, consequently, to the election process itself.

Applying Aysha Khatun, the Court concluded that the District Commissioner could not independently determine the alleged disqualification or initiate proceedings against the returned candidate.

The petitioner’s remedy, if otherwise maintainable and within limitation, was to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal.

The District Commissioner was therefore justified in taking no action.

Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it without costs.