Pre-Nomination Panchayat Disqualifications Must Be Challenged Through an Election Petition.

The petitioner was elected as a Ward Member of Ward No. 7 of 25-Gutipara Gaon Panchayat in the 2025 Panchayat election.

Following a complaint alleging child marriage, the District Commissioner ordered her removal under Rule 62(4)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, as amended.

The petitioner challenged the order, asserting, among other things, that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to decide a disqualification that existed when she filed her nomination.

The judgment also records that the enquiry report relied on by the District Commissioner was not furnished to the petitioner before the order was made.

Whether the District Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide a disqualification alleged to have existed when the petitioner submitted her nomination papers.

Whether the removal order was procedurally unfair because the enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner before the decision.

Article 243F of the Constitution governs disqualification for being chosen as, and for being, a Panchayat member; Article 243-O bars judicial interference in Panchayat elections except through an election petition.

Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 concerns disqualification, while Section 129 provides for challenging an election by election petition.

Under the principles drawn from Aysha Khatun v. State of Assam & 5 Others, 2026 (3) GLT 102, an alleged disqualification existing when nomination papers are submitted is a matter of improper acceptance of nomination and must be challenged through an election petition.

Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder v. State of Assam & 6 Others, 2026:GAU-AS:3725, applied those principles to hold that the District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to determine such a disqualification after the election.

The Court found that the alleged disqualification existed when the petitioner submitted her nomination papers.

Applying Aysha Khatun as explained in Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder, it held that a challenge based on that alleged disqualification concerns the election process—specifically, the acceptance of the nomination—and must be brought by election petition, not determined by the District Commissioner.

The Court also noted that the enquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, contrary to natural justice, but resolved the petition on the District Commissioner’s lack of jurisdiction.

It set aside and quashed the removal order dated 23 July 2026 and all consequential actions, with no order as to costs.