LiveLaw Gauhati High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2026 [Citations 1 - 85]
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 1- 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 85Nominal Index Bhupendra Choudhury v/s Arun Choudhury 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 1Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 2 Hussain Md. Rijuan v/s The State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 3X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 4Seema Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 5The State of Assam...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 1- 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 85
Nominal Index
Bhupendra Choudhury v/s Arun Choudhury 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 1
Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
Hussain Md. Rijuan v/s The State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 4
Seema Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 5
The State of Assam & Others vs. Ikbal Hussain Laskar 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 6
HIMASHMI SAIKIA & Ors. v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 7
The State of Assam & Ors. v. Dipak Gogoi 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 8
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd & Anr v Hakim Uddin & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 9
Bolendra Nath Brahma and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 10
M/s Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 11
PD Savera LLP v. Galacon Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 12
Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
M/s Vertex Construction v. The State of Nagaland & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 19
Anil Narzary v Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 20
Bhupendra Choudhury & Anr. v Arun Choudhury 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 21
Abu Ansar Azad & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 22
Burhan Ali v State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 23
Md. Shah Alam v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 24
M/s Amprolisa Construction and Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Gupta Hardware Private Limited and Another. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 25
Abhishek Kar v State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
Mahim Chandra Nath and 9 Others v. State of Assam and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 27
Dr. Vimal Katiyar v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 28
Dalimi Kalita v Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 29
Nawaz Shrif & Anr v State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 30
Md. Nur Amin Ahmed v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 31
Sapiyel Hoque alias Sapial Hoque & Anr. v The State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 32
Sri Bappi Sarkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 33
Bijoy Kumar Biswakarma v The Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 34
Victor Das v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 35
The State Of Assam And Ors. Vs. Madhab Chandra Kalita And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 36
Hemen Chandra Das Vs. Ramesh Chandra Khakhlari & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 37
Aloke Kumar Ghoshal v. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 38
DR. HIRENDRANATH GOHAIN AND 2 ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 39
Sachin Kumar Thakur v. Office of the Commandant Assam Rifle Taning Centre and School & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 40
Abdul Kalam v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 41
Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 42
Sibo Prasad Choudhury and 5 Ors v. Bicky Khan and 2 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 45
Dwipjyoti Talukdar Vs. The Union of India and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 46
Prasanta Kumar Borah v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
Sri Ram Krishna Dutta & Ors. v. Bimal Phukan @ Bipin Bharali 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
Hamedur Islam alias Hamidur Islam v. The State of Assam and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 49
Nripen Rabha v State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 50
Suktara Begum v. Union of India & 8 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 51
Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah v. State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 52
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
Boby Das v. Sri Kantiram Das 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 55
Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 56
Sri Sajal Kamal Das v. The State of Assam and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 57
Abhijit Chakraborty v. The Bikrampur Coop Societies Ltd. & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 58
Abul Basfar v. State of Assam & Ors. and connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 59
Smti Dipali Baruah v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 60
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Devi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 61
Jahindra Brahma v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 62
Sandeep Bharali v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 63
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smti Lakhi Das & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 64
Maya Das v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 65
Jibon Ali v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 66
X v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 67
M/S Hotel Brideway & Anr. v. The Union of India & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 68
Kandarpa Kanta Sarma v. Union of India & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 69
Modon Urang v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 70
Pabindra Kumar Das v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
On the Death of Bajranglal Modi, His Legal Heir Smt. Prem Lota Modi & Anr. v. Sri Raj Kumar Modi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
Dabir Rahman @ Dabibur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 73
Satish Ray (Mandal) @ Satish Mandal @ Satish Ch. Ray v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 74
Jiten Engti & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 75
Rezzaqul Hussain v. State of Assam & 6 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 76
Subhodeep Roy v. Madhu Sudan Koiri & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 77
[Custodial Death Compensation Case – Case title not provided in the text] 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 78
On the Death of Md. Murad Iman, His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. On the Death of Md. Suleman Sheikh, His Legal Heirs & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 79
Walia Murshida Huda v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 80
Shri Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & . 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 81
Bipin Kumar & Anr. v. State of Assam (connected with Suraj Kumar Roy v. State of Assam & Anr.) 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 82
Bikram Pathak & 608 Ors. v. State of Assam & 4 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 83
On the Death of Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, His Legal Heirs namely Mumtaz Begum & Ors. v. Khurshid Ali 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 84
Mrig Mrinal Dhawan v. The Union of India & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 85
Judgments/ Orders
Case title: Bhupendra Choudhury v/s Arun Choudhury
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 1
The Gauhati High Court has held that under the provisions of BNSS if the Magistrate feels that there is some substance in a criminal complaint then after examining the complainant and the witnesses on oath and before taking cognizance of the matter, the magistrate must give notice to the accused providing him an opportunity of hearing.
In doing so the court set aside notices issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon holding that the Magistrate had acted contrary to the statutory scheme by issuing notices to accused without examining the complainants and witnesses on oath as per Section 223(1) BNSS, and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.
Case Title : Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 2
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that conciliation under Section 10(4) of the POSH Act bars only further inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee and does not prevent the employer from initiating independent disciplinary proceedings under the service rules in light of new evidence to ensure a safe workplace.
Case title: Hussain Md. Rijuan v/s The State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 3
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the cognisance taken under Section 306 IPC in respect of a man accused of abetting a minor girl's suicide noting that other than the fact that he had refused to marry her there was no prima facie material indicating instigation by him which could have compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
The high court however upheld the cognizance taken by the under Sections 417 and 376(rape) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Thus the court partly allowed the accused's plea challenging a trial court order which had taken cognizance for offences of rape and abetment to suicide.
Case Title: X v/s Y
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 4
The Gauhati High Court has held that a civil judge does not have the jurisdiction to authenticate dissolution of a Muslim marriage in the form of talaq and grant a declaratory decree of divorce and the competent court would be the Family Court or the District Court in the absence of family court.
In doing so the high court upheld an order of Civil Judge (senior division) which had dismissed order passed by the appellate court–Civil Judge (junior division), which had granted a declaratory relief to a man in the form of talaq along with a decree for confirmation of written divorce in a matrimonial suit. Against the appellate court's order the husband had moved the high court.
Case Title: Seema Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 5
The Gauhati High Court has held that the statutory restrictions governing surrogacy are constitutionally valid and cannot be relaxed on the basis of individual circumstances.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, presiding over the case, observed, “The measures pursue legitimate state interests, bear a rational nexus with the object of the legislation and cannot be said to be excessive or oppressive. Individual hardship, however genuine, cannot be a ground to strike down or relax a statutory policy framed in the public interest.”
“In conclusion, while the Court is not unmindful of the petitioners' predicament, constitutional adjudication cannot be guided by sympathy alone. The impugned provisions represent a considered legislative policy and do not infringe on Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court added.
Case Title : The State of Assam & Others vs. Ikbal Hussain Laskar
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 6
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that if a contractual employee's appointment expressly incorporates statutory disciplinary rules, then the termination on grounds of misconduct is punitive and invalid without following the prescribed enquiry procedure under such rules.
Case title: HIMASHMI SAIKIA & Ors. v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 7
The Gauhati High Court has quashed the cancellation of recruitment process for the post of Rehabilitation Workers under the National Health Mission (NHM), Assam, which was halted after the State Government flagged non-compliance with reservation norms.
The recruitment, which had progressed up to the publication of an approved select list, was cancelled on the grounds that reservations had not been provided to candidates belonging to reserved communities.
Case Title: The State of Assam & Ors. v. Dipak Gogoi
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 8
The Gauhati High Court has held that a policy condition restricting compassionate appointment on the basis of the remaining length of service of a deceased government employee is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed, “We find that the classification made on the basis of the remaining service period left for the deceased employee is neither intelligible nor has any nexus with the differentia sought to be achieved.”
Case Title: Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd & Anr v Hakim Uddin & Anr
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 9
The Gauhati High Court, while considering the validity of a settlement recorded in a National Lok Adalat, held that settlement under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 must be arrived at by the parties themselves with free consent, and that in the absence of written authority authorising counsel to sign a compromise, such settlement cannot be treated as valid.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, observed, “The objective of the Act is to bring disputes to a final settlement for which the presence of the parties and their free consent is mandatory. This Court has also carefully gone through the records of the learned Commission which were requisitioned by this Court on 11.12.2025 on the specific issue as to whether any authority was given to the learned lawyer to act and sign the compromise.”
Case Title: Bolendra Nath Brahma and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam
LLCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 10
The Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be sustained against an accused Home Guard where the materials on record are only hearsay and do not disclose any nexus with the discharge of official duties.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, held, “As regards the petitioner No.2, I find sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel that there is no allegation against him, other than hearsay material, having nexus to his official duties and therefore, he cannot be deemed to have acted as a public servant as defined in Section 15 of the Assam Home Guard Act and Rules, 1947.”
Case Title: M/s Versha Technotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 11
The Gauhati High Court while refusing to interfere with the award of a Public Works Department contract for construction of a Circuit House at Udalguri, held that an allegation of cartelisation raised by an unsuccessful bidder based solely on a common photograph enclosed with site-visit certificates of two competing bidders cannot be accepted in the absence of any concrete material showing breach of the integrity commitment under the tender.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, pressing over the case, observed, “Even if the altered argument is taken into consideration that the two representatives of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were found to have featured in the common photograph, the same, in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be construed to be any violation of the Integrity Commitment. To accept such submission would be far-fetched and would be in the realm of imagination.”
Case Title: PD Savera LLP v. Galacon Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 12
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952, the Gauhati High Court has held that a Magistrate is not required to issue notice to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The Court clarified that issuing such notice by invoking the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is legally unsustainable as the NI Act is a special enactment.
A bench of Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, observed, "… the impugned Order of the Trial Court to the extent of issuing notice to the accused persons … is found to have suffered from infirmity for the reason that the Trial Court has proceeded to issue notice to them at the pre-cognizance stage in purported adherence to the first proviso to sub-section [1] of Section 223, BNSS".
Case: Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13
The Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with the cancellation of a fair price shop (PDS) licence, holding that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision, and finding that no case for interference was made out.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, said, “The certiorari jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be confined to the decision making process and not to the merits of the decision. In other words, the examination is on the aspect as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration or as to whether the impugned decision is based on extraneous factors and irrelevant consideration. The aspect of jurisdiction of the authority passing the order may also be examined which is not the case in hand. There are also no allegations of mala fide in passing of the impugned order.”
Case: Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14
The Gauhati High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused after holding that, once the co-accused in the same case (tried separately) had been acquitted and such findings had not been disturbed in appeal, the Court was bound to proceed on the basis that those findings were valid for the purpose of bail, thereby satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, observed, “Till such finding is disturbed in appeal, the Court considering the bail application must proceed on the basis that the said findings are valid ones, as in a bail application, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of such findings. In that view of the matter, as a logical corollary, it would be prudent for the Court to hold that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and therefore, the first condition stipulated under Section 37 NDPS Act stands satisfied.”
Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Way Of Affidavit Made Before Notary: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15
The Gauhati High Court has held that a marriage cannot be dissolved by way of an affidavit made before a Notary, and that in the absence of any material showing invocation of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, a claim of divorce based merely on a notarised affidavit cannot be accepted.
Setting aside the Family Court's maintenance order, the Court found that the Respondent's earlier marriage had not been shown to be lawfully dissolved.
Case Title: Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners' Tribunal opinion, holding that the petitioner had “miserably failed” to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens, and finding no perversity or error on the face of the record in the Tribunal's decision declaring him a foreigner
A division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the case, observed, “Under the circumstances, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he could be connected to the voters whose names appeared in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.A.), petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens.”
Case Title: Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17
The Gauhati High Court has held that where there are disputed questions requiring adjudication through evidence, it may not be prudent to grant interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act at that stage.
Justice Pranjal Das accordingly set aside a trial court order directing payment of 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. The bench observed,
"The court has to be satisfied about a prima facie case before granting interim compensation. The court to make such prima facie determination has to see the merits of the case put forth by the complainant and the merits of the defence put forth by the accused. It is also stated that if the defence of the accused is prima facie found to be plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing interim compensation."
Case Title: M/s Vertex Construction v. The State of Nagaland & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 18
The Gauhati High Court has held that mere non-disclosure of use of Quality and Cost Based Selection (QCBS) method in selection of tender would not by itself give rise to allegations of malafides, favouritism or corruption by parties.
Such ground cannot be raised, particularly where the decision to adopt such QCBS method was taken well before issuance of tender and at a stage when the identity of bidders was unknown.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that the project/work in question was under a Centrally funded Scheme i.e., Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna which, if not executed within the time-line, would lead to lapsing of the Central fund, thereby saddling the State with the responsibility of completing the unfinished task.
Case Title: Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 19
In a writ petition seeking a direction for fresh consideration of a compassionate appointment claim, the Gauhati High Court has held that such relief cannot be granted where nearly 13 years have elapsed since the death of the employee, observing that compassionate appointment is meant to provide immediate relief and must be proximate to the date of death, and that in the present case the claim had become stale.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, presiding over the case, held, “The learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed that the case of the petitioner admittedly not being considered in the manner required by the State Level Committee, a direction is called upon to be issued for a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner. This Court has examined the said contention of the petitioner. This Court notices that the father of the petitioner had died-in-harness on 14-05-2012 and around 13 (thirteen) years have lapsed since then.”
Case Title: Anil Narzary v Union of India & Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 20
The Gauhati High Court has awarded compensation to the family of a cultivator from Chirang district who died during a police operation in December 2016, after holding that despite prior intelligence inputs, the authorities failed to act in a timely and documented manner, making the incident avoidable and resulting in infringement of Article 21.
The division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, “Timely appropriate action on the intelligence inputs was expected. The laxity on the part of the police authorities and the Army, who accompanied the police without keeping documented records, played a vital role in creating a situation leading to exchange of fire and death.”
Case Title: Bhupendra Choudhury & Anr. v Arun Choudhury
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 21
The Gauhati High Court has held that under Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), a Magistrate cannot issue notice to the accused before examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, and that doing so violates the statutory mandate.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the ruling, held, “issuance of notice to the accused prior to examination of the Complainant and the witnesses, if any, is not what is mandated under Section 223(1) of BNSS, 2023, rather what is mandated is notice to be issued to the Accused only after examination of the Complainant and the present witnesses, if any. However, this is only when the Magistrate does not want to exercise his powers under Section 226 of the BNSS, 2023.”
Case Title: Abu Ansar Azad & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 22
The Gauhati High Court has refused to interfere with Assam Government's Executive Order (Standard Operating Procedure) for compassionate appointment cases fixing a cut off date as criteria, holding that State is entitled to prescribe a uniform mechanism for dealing with such claims and fixing a cut-off date is not per se illegal.
Justice Kaushik Goswami, presiding over the case, observed, “A writ Court does not sit in appeal over a governmental policy. Interference is warranted only if the policy is unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary or irrational, discriminatory without reasonable classification or contrary to any statute.”
Case Title: Burhan Ali v State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 23
The Gauhati High Court has held that the presence of 6 ward members would fulfill the quorum of the first meeting to elect President to a Gaon (Village) Panchayat as required under Rule 46 (3) of Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules after amendment to the state panchayat law.
The court said that the quorum requirement must be understood in light of amendment to Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act in 2023, and thus restored the election of President of Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat which had been earlier quashed by the District Commissioner, Biswanath.
Case Title: Md. Shah Alam v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 24
The Gauhati High Court has stressed that investigations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act must be conducted with sensitivity and strict adherence to child-friendly procedures, observing that failure to provide counselling support, appoint support persons and record clear, specific statements may defeat the very cause of justice. The Court cautioned that defective or casual investigations not only prejudice the accused but may also result in acquittals even where an offence might have occurred.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami made these observations while setting aside the conviction of a man who had been sentenced to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(3) IPC. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his release.
Case Title: M/s Amprolisa Construction and Marketing Pvt Ltd v. Gupta Hardware Private Limited and Another.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 25
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be invalidated merely because there was a defect in authorisation at the time of its institution, as such a defect is curable and can be rectified even during trial or at the appellate stage.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, reiterated, “any initial defect as regards authorization at the time of initiation of the complaint is a curable defect which can be subsequently cured during the course of the trial or even at the appellate stage…”
Case Title: Abhishek Kar v State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 26
The Gauhati High Court has quashed the CID Cyber Case registered against influencer Abhishek Kar for linking Assamese women to black magic in a YouTube video.
Justice Pranjal Das held that the statement attributed to him does not fulfill the essential ingredients to invoke offences under Section 196 (Promoting enmity between different groups) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 67 (publishing obscene material) of the Information Technology Act, and Section 4 (identifying, calling, stigmatizing or defaming any person as a witch) of the Assam Witch Hunting (Prohibition, Prevention and Protection) Act, 2015.
Case Title: Mahim Chandra Nath and 9 Others v. State of Assam and Others
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 27
The Gauhati High Court has clarified that where persons are in illegal occupation of Government land, and the authorities seek to make the land encroachment-free, a proper notice under Section 18 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 must be issued.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, observed, “...it appears that the petitioners are in possession of certain lands which are admittedly government land. The notice which was issued earlier has been perused and the said notice is only on the aspect of production of documents of allotment which, if not done would lead cancellation of the allotment.”
Case Title: Dr. Vimal Katiyar v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 28
The Gauhati High Court recently quashed the sexual harassment case registered against an IIT Professor for allegedly touching the hands of a woman who had approached him seeking mentorship for her startup idea.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma noted that mere 'touching' of hands does not satisfy the definition of 'force' to attract the offence of Outraging woman's modesty by assault or use of criminal force under Section 354 IPC.
Case Title: Dalimi Kalita v Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 29
A challenge to wrong pay fixation cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay where the grievance discloses a continuing or recurring wrong, the Gauhati High Court has held, while directing reconsideration of a claim raised by an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) seeking parity in pay with similarly situated employees.
Justice Kardak Ete, presiding over the case, held, “I am of the view that there would not be any quarrel to the aforesaid observation and proposition, although it has been rendered on its contextual facts of those cases, as in respect of any continuing / recurring cause of action, no application can be barred on the ground of limitation.”
Case Title: Nawaz Shrif & Anr v State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 30
The Gauhati High Court has held that strict compliance with Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requiring written intimation of the grounds of arrest to the relatives of the accused, cannot be insisted upon in certain exceptional circumstances, and that the facts of the present case constitute such an exception.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, pressing over the case, observed, “At this stage, what is extremely important to notice is that the addresses of the relatives of the accused persons show that they are residents of Manipur. Judicial notice of the fact has to be taken that at the time of occurrence i.e. 18.08.2025, Manipur was still a highly disturbed area with sporadic incidents of ethnic violence and it could not have been very easy to serve such notices to the said persons within such a short time and also to obtain proof of service. The decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) cannot be read as permitting of no exception regardless of the circumstances. The use of the term 'may' would prima facie support this view. Therefore, strict compliance with the provisions of Section 48 BNSS cannot be insisted upon in certain exceptional circumstances as the present one.”
Case Title: Md. Nur Amin Ahmed v. State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 31
The Gauhati High Court has granted regular bail to a man arrested for allegedly posting an objectionable Facebook comment in connection with a bomb blast near the Red Fort.
Justice Pranjal Das, while allowing the bail application, observed, “Without going into the merit of the case; only considering the period of detention and completion of investigation, petitioner shall be allowed to go on bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court.”
Gauhati High Court Quashes Child Marriage, POCSO Case As Couple Married, Living Together With Child
Case Title: Sapiyel Hoque alias Sapial Hoque & Anr. v The State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 32
The Gauhati High Court, applying Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, quashed criminal proceedings under the Child Marriage Act and the POCSO Act, holding that since the parties were married, living together, and had a minor child, continuation of the trial would be futile.
Justice Pranjal Das, pressing over the case, observed, “the objective reality that has emerged in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, also cannot be overlooked. The parties are married, living a peaceful conjugal life and they also have a minor child. In the said situation, allowing the trial to proceed might be an exercise in futility. Even otherwise, such a continuing prosecution could be detrimental to the interest of the child and the victim girl herself in the objective situation.”
“Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, despite the provisions of Child Marriage and POCSO, it would be justified to exercise the power under Section 528 BNSS to allow the prayer of the petitioner, who are interestingly both the accused and the victim jointly praying to quash the proceeding,” Justice Das added.
Case Title: Sri Bappi Sarkar and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 33
The Gauhati High Court has held that intimation of arrest sent to the family members of an arrestee via WhatsApp, without proof of actual service, does not amount to due compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, and that such non-compliance renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, held, “A perusal of the notices under Section 48 available in the scanned TCR could go to show that they were prepared in the English language and sent to the relatives of the petitioners by way of WhatsApp messages, but there is no proof of service available. In the absence of actual service, it certainly cannot be held that there was due compliance with the provisions of Section 48 BNSS."
CBSE Can't Reduce Marks In Subject Not Sought For Re-Evaluation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Bijoy Kumar Biswakarma v The Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 34
The Gauhati High Court has held that while re-evaluating a student's answer sheet in a subject for which an application is made, the CBSE cannot alter marks in another subject that was not sought to be re-evaluated, and that marks already awarded in such other subjects cannot be changed without a corresponding application.
Justice Nelson Sailo observed, “...when the son of the petitioner had applied for reevaluation in the Science paper as per the relevant guidelines, it is not understood as to why, while making such reevaluation, marks have been deducted from the Mathematics paper. Besides, as already stated in the Communication dated 25.06.2025 by which the student was communicated about the deduction of the mistake in the allotment of marks in Science paper, there is no indication to show that 13 marks given to him earlier has been upgraded to 15 marks by giving him two extra grace marks. Therefore, the marks already given to the petitioner's son in respect of Mathematics cannot be changed in the manner that has been done without any application for reevaluation of marks in the Mathematics paper,” Justice Sailo added.
Case : Victor Das v. Union of India
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 35
The Gauhati High Court has set aside the preventive detention of Victor Das under the National Security Act, 1980, holding that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) were violated.
A Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita quashed the detention order dated October 7, 2025, the grounds of detention, and the State Government's approval, directing that Das be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case Name : The State Of Assam And Ors. Vs. Madhab Chandra Kalita And Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 36
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami held that obtaining a degree without prior permission amounts to misconduct in violation of statutory conduct rules. Further, during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, an employee cannot be given an in-charge promotional post, though the degree itself remains valid.
Retrospective Regularisation Shall Not Confer Seniority: Gauhati HC
Case Name : Hemen Chandra Das Vs. Ramesh Chandra Khakhlari & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 37
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami held that seniority as a graduate teacher can be counted only from the date when the teacher possessed both the Graduate qualification and received the Graduate scale of pay. Further, the retrospective regularization cannot confer retrospective seniority.
Case: Aloke Kumar Ghoshal v. Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati & Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 38
The Gauhati High Court has held that procedural lapses or inaction on the part of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) cannot defeat an aggrieved woman's substantive statutory right to seek redress under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Dismissing a challenge to the revival of ICC proceedings, Justice Devashis Baruah made it clear that the protective scheme of the Act cannot be frustrated merely because the committee earlier failed to act.
Case title: DR. HIRENDRANATH GOHAIN AND 2 ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS and connected petition
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 39
The Gauhati High Court on Thursday (February 26) issued notice on a PIL petition and two connected cases seeking directions to restrain Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma from making alleged hate speeches against the minority communities in the state.
The PIL states that despite the presence of public videos of alleged hate speeches of CM Sarma, Assam Police has not filed a suo motu FIR. It claims that inaction against CM fosters a "climate of impunity" and a chilling effect.
The PIL filed by Assamese scholar Dr Hiren Gohain and two others seeks directions to restrain CM Sarma from making alleged hate speeches and inciting civilians to take the law into their own hands against minority communities.
Discharge Without Completion Of Training In Assam Rifles , No Right For Reinstatement : Gauhati HC
Case Name : Sachin Kumar Thakur v. Office of the Commandant Assam Rifle Taning Centre and School & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 40
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Unni Krishnan Nair and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer held that a trainee who has neither successfully completed training nor been formally enrolled as a member of the Assam Rifles under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, is not entitled to reinstatement, especially when he has voluntarily sought discharge by executing a written application and affidavit.
Case Title: Abdul Kalam v. The Union of India
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 41
The Gauhati High Court refused to grant bail to an NDPS accused who had claimed violation of arrest procedure under BNSS, after finding that his family who lived in Manipur were informed of the arrest via telephonic intimation and there was subsequent service of written notice under section 48 of BNSS.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, noted that at the time of the accused's arrest in Guwahati, his wife was intimated about his arrest over the telephone call as she is a resident of a village in Manipur. The court further noted that a document to that effect was prepared which "mentioned that Grounds of Arrest of the Accused Applicant were explained by him to his wife and the contents were admitted by the Accused Applicant by putting his signature on that".
Bail Can Be Cancelled If Procured By Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Prasun Banik v. The State of Assam and Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 42
The Gauhati High Court has held that bail granted to an accused person can be cancelled where it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “...a bail order can also be cancelled, if it was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. The aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances that have emerged in the instant case as narrated and discussed above. Clearly, the respondent No.2/accused misrepresented facts amounting to fraud regarding his resignation in securing the bail order. Therefore, on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the bail granted to the accused deserves to be cancelled in exercise of both the inherent powers of this Court as well as the powers of bail cancellation available to this Court concurrently with that of the Sessions Court,” the Court added.
Case Title: Sibo Prasad Choudhury and 5 Ors v. Bicky Khan and 2 Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 43
The Gauhati High Court has held that where an earlier trial court judgment had already been set aside by the appellate court remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, the appellate court cannot later reconsider the earlier "non-existent judgment" on merits and uphold it.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita observed that Judgment dated 30.04.2011, passed by the magistrate court was in essence set aside by the Sessions Court on 01.11.2011 wherein the session judge had specifically stated that it was a fit case for remand.
Case Title:Md. Mizanul Hoque v. State of Assam and 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 44
The Gauhati High Court has held that a departmental proceeding cannot be sustained where the disciplinary authority shows a pre-determined mind at the very stage of issuing the first show cause notice, and where the enquiry is conducted in a manner contrary to law, rendering the process unfair
Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, “…the words used in the first show cause notice like 'gross misconduct', 'act of indiscipline and dereliction of duty' and 'absolute lack of integrity' go to show that the disciplinary authority had already arrived at a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioner even before initiation of the departmental proceeding.”
Case Name: Mukesh Jalan v. State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 45
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that mere non-payment arising out of contractual dealings, without prima facie material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception, cannot be treated as offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, who observed,
“…though there are instances of non-fulfillment of promises, the same cannot prima facie be termed as willful intention on the part of the accused-applicant for non-payment. It is seen that the disputes as alleged in the instant case are primarily of civil nature, wherein allegation of breach of several contracts by the accused-applicant is leveled. However, the same cannot be treated prima facie as Cheating or Criminal Breach of Trust on the basis of the materials available before this Court.”
Discharge From Air Force On Grounds Of cumulative Unsuitability; Not A Punishment: Gauhati HC
Case Name : Dwipjyoti Talukdar Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 46
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that discharge of an airman under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969, based on cumulative red-ink entries reflecting unsuitability for service does not amount to punishment.
Case Name: Prasanta Kumar Borah v. The State of Assam and 4 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 47
The Gauhati High Court has held that an enquiry resulting in adverse civil consequences against a Gram Pradhan is vitiated if the complaints and foundational materials on which it is based are not disclosed to him, as such non-disclosure renders the opportunity of hearing illusory and violates both executive instruction 162-A and principles of natural justice.
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, while dealing with the core issue, “whether an enquiry culminating in adverse civil consequences can be sustained when the foundational material on which it rests was not disclosed to the person against whom it is conducted,” stated, “The answer must be negative.”
Case Title: Sri Ram Krishna Dutta & Ors. v. Bimal Phukan @ Bipin Bharali
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 48
The Gauhati High Court has held that prior determination of civil liability under Section 10(2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 is not required in every case, and is not attracted where no bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land is raised. In such circumstances, the Land Grabbing Tribunal can proceed with the criminal aspect of the matter without undertaking a separate civil adjudication.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the records that although the petitioners filed their written objection before the Land Grabbing Tribunal, they did not raise any specific or bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land in dispute.”
Case Title: Hamedur Islam alias Hamidur Islam v. The State of Assam and Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 49
The Gauhati High Court has held that the existence of a love relationship between a man and a woman does not dilute the criminality of rape, and that even in a premarital relationship, any forceful physical act against the woman's will remains a criminal offence.
Presiding over the case, Justice Pranjal Das, observed, “Even if a man and a woman are in a relationship; that would certainly not give a license to the man to commit rape upon the girl. Though marital rape is still not criminalized in the country, but even in a premarital love relationship between a man and a woman; committing forceful physical relationship upon her against her wish would still be a criminal act.”
Case Name: Nripen Rabha v State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 50
The Gauhati High Court has held that where the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable and corroborated by her statement and medical evidence, the prosecution can be held to have successfully proved the factum of sexual assault, and a negative DNA finding does not by itself affect such conclusion.
While agreeing with the opinion of the trial court, Justice Pranjal Das, presiding over the case, observed, “In view of the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by her section 164 CrPC statement; the testimony of her brother who was part eyewitness; the corroboration rendered by the medical findings – it has to be held that the prosecution has successfully proved the factum of sexual assault upon the victim by the appellants. In any case, as far as the DNA evidence is concerned, it is not stated that the DNA sample which was taken from the innerwear of the victim and matched with the blood sample of the convict appellants pertain to any DNA/body material of the appellants.”
Case Name: Suktara Begum v. Union of India & 8 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 51
The Gauhati High Court has held that once a person is declared a foreign national by a Foreigners' Tribunal, constitutional safeguards meant for citizens cannot be extended to such a person, and no further right of hearing is required before expulsion.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, which observed, “Even the United States of America, one of the developed Countries, is starting to feel the pinch of illegal immigrants and the nature of steps taken by it are in the public domain, on which the Court does not comment.”
Case Name: Aoicharjya Jibon Baruah v. State of Assam
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 52
The Gauhati High Court barred the State from using findings in two reports of an inquiry commission probing alleged irregularities in appointments to Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Combined Competitive Examinations conducted 2013 and 2014, to initiate disciplinary proceedings/prosecution against various candidates.
In doing so the court observed that the findings therein violated the candidates' rights and procedural safeguards under Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act to be heard and to conduct cross examination.
Non-Renewal Of Contract Not Retrenchment: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Reinstatement Of Workman
Case Name: Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 53
The Gauhati High Court, while setting aside an award directing reinstatement of a workman, has held that termination of service on account of non-renewal of a contractual engagement would not fall within the definition of “retrenchment” under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
While dealing with Section 2(oo) of the Act, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, noted, “Sub Section (bb) would clarify that it does not include termination as a result of non-renewal.”
Major Son Pursuing Studies Not Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Gauhati High Court
Case Name: Smti. Boby Das v. Sri Kantiram Das
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 54
The Gauhati High Court has held that maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC cannot be granted to a son who has attained the age of majority, merely on the ground that he is pursuing his studies, as the statute itself restricts such entitlement till majority, except in cases covered by clause (c).
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, pressing over the case, observed, “From the above clause (b) of Section 125(1) CrPC, it is abundantly clear that the statute has curtailed the period of maintenance to the child till he or she attains majority, whereas clause (c) thereof stipulates that such maintenance can be granted, even after attainment of majority when the child, not being a married daughter, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.”
Case Title: Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 55
The Gauhati High Court has quashed a notification which clubbed a newly created post in Grade-I of the Mizoram Judicial Service with the ongoing recruitment process initiated earlier, noting that the newly created post would fall within category of a “future” vacancy and not an “existing” or “anticipated” vacancy.
The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in All India Judges Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India (2025) wherein quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was directed to be increased from 10% to 25%.
Case Name: Nizara Thakur v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 56
The Gauhati High Court has held that pension and family pension under the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 extend to employees who had retired or died prior to its commencement, and that denying such benefit on the ground of “retrospective” applicability is “an absurd proposition.”
Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, presiding over the case, observed, “There is no quarrel that the Act of 2005 itself provides for the grant of pension in respect of “employees” who had retired before the Act of 2005 came into force, and it also provides for family pension to the family of those “employees” who had expired before the Act of 2005 came into force. The issue of “retrospective” applicability of the Act of 2005, as found in the letter dated 03.03.2023, is an absurd proposition, since a reasoned perusal of the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 2005 would reveal that the facility of pension and/or family pension would apply to “employees” who had retired or expired prior to the coming into force of the Act of 2005, provided the Government share of CPF benefit received by such “employee” were refunded within the time frame given by the Act of 2005 itself.”
Case Title: Sri Sajal Kamal Das v. The State of Assam and Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 57
The Gauhati High Court held that where the issue of award of marks in a recruitment process had already been raised in an earlier writ proceeding but the party had settled for remand to the executive authority on a limited issue, the subsequent challenge to the marks would be barred by constructive res judicata.
Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, presiding over the case, observed, “…constructive res judicata … is a legal fiction embodied in Explanation 4 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which expands the traditional doctrine of res judicata. Ordinarily, res judicata bars the issues that were actually raised and decided in an earlier proceeding. Constructive res judicata goes further and it bars the issues that ought to have been raised, but were not.”
Case Name : Abhijit Chakraborty v. The Bikrampur Coop Societies Ltd and Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 58
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has jurisdiction under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 to adjudicate a dispute concerning the removal of a Secretary/Chief Executive, as this office has a distinct statutory character and is not merely a private employment contract.
Case Title: Abul Basfar v. State of Assam & Ors and connected appeal.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 59
The Gauhati High Court altered murder (Section 302 IPC) conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 part 1 IPC), after noting that a sudden fight without premeditation had arisen between the accused and the deceased over cultivable land thereby attracting exception-IV to Section 300 IPC.
Exception IV states that Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Promotion Can't Be Denied Due To Pending Investigation Without Chargesheet: Gauhati High Court
Case Name: Smti Dipali Baruah v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: : 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 60
The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Police authorities to reconsider the case of a woman Sub-Inspector for confirmation in the rank of Sub-Inspector (UB) as well as promotion to the rank of Inspector (UB), while taking into account that no charge-sheet had been filed against her despite pendency of a criminal case.
Justice Budi Habung, presiding over the case, observed, “Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner.”
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila Devi & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 61
The Gauhati High Court has held that an insurer cannot avoid its liability in a motor accident claim without proving breach of policy condition by cogent evidence, and accordingly enhanced the compensation from ₹24,48,576/- awarded by the Tribunal to ₹39,87,730/-, extending the benefit to all dependents and correcting the deduction towards personal expenses.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “To put it simply, it is for the insurance company to prove the facts of breach of any policy condition by the insured in order to avoid its liability of indemnifying the insured for payment of any compensation to any claimant in the motor accident claims case. … This Court finds no infirmity or error in the aforesaid reasoning of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for discarding the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 as regards the fact of proving the lapse of validity of the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle.”
Case Title: Jahindra Brahma v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 62
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that recovery of alleged excess gratuity from a retired employee is not permissible where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the excess payment has arisen due to the employer's own calculation.
Justice Budi Habung, presiding over the case, observed, “In the present case the petitioner is a retired employee. The gratuity was calculated by the respondent authority and it was released by the department itself. There is no any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner. The alleged excess payment arose, if at all, was due to departmental recalculation after retrospective promotion. Thus, the case squarely falls within the protective umbrella of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases.”
Case Name: Sandeep Bharali v. State of Assam and Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 63
The Gauhati High Court held that under the Assam Service (Pension) Rules a government employee who voluntarily resigns, without there being material to show that the resignation was for taking up another qualifying government appointment, results in forfeiture of past service and the employee is not entitled to pension.
The Court, however, clarified that claims relating to earned leave encashment, salary arrears and withdrawal of PRAN amount stand on a different footing and are to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules, if admissible.
Case Name: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Smti Lakhi Das & Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 64
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that victims of road accidents should not be left without remedy merely because of disputes between the insured and the insurer, even while holding that the insurance company cannot be made liable where there was no valid policy covering the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, observed, “the fact that there was no valid insurance policy covering the vehicle of respondent No.4 is a negative fact and the insurance company cannot be asked to prove a negative fact by leading evidence as held by a coordinate bench of this Court in MACApp.190/2014. The Court held that on the contrary the burden to establish the fact that the vehicle was insured is upon the claimant.”
Case Title: Maya Das v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 65
The Gauhati High Court has made it clear that the children cannot automatically be declared foreigners, merely because a Foreigner Tribunal had declared their parent as a foreigner.
In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Shamima Jahan reiterated that until a specific reference is initiated against an individual, no orders of declaration as foreigner of such persons can be made by any Foreigners Tribunal.
Case Name: Jibon Ali v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 66
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that extracts of National Register of Citizens (NRC) produced to prove Indian citizenship is not admissible in evidence for any purpose.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Shamima Jahan observed, "The petitioner had thereafter relied on the NRC details wherein the petitioner was shown as the son of Abul Haki. The same is again not admissible in evidence. In a recent decision delivered by this Court in WP(C) no. 1837/2025 Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique Vs. Union of India and Ors. had held that NRC document has no value in the eye of law in considering the citizenship of the person like the present petitioner".
Case Title: X v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 67
The Gauhati High Court has held that mere failure of the husband in furnishing documents regarding his employment does not discredit his evidence about his income as stated in statement of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
In doing so the court held that order shifting burden of proof on the husband to establish his income, for determining maintenance to wife, is arbitrary.
Case Name: M/S Hotel Brideway And Anr. v. The Union of India And 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 68
The Gauhati High Court has held that disputes relating to ESI coverage, number of employees, contribution liability and the factual basis of an order passed under Section 45A of the Employees' State Insurance Act must ordinarily be raised before the Employees' Insurance Court under Section 75.
In doing so the court said that the issues cannot be converted into a plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction before the writ court merely by labelling them as jurisdictional objections, and that a writ court cannot adjudicate such disputes over jurisdictional ground as it requires a factual examination.
Case Name: Kandarpa Kanta Sarma v. Union of India and 3 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 69
The Gauhati High Court has held that a railway employee who vacates official accommodation and does not apply for available entitled-category quarters is not entitled to House Rent Allowance, and such claim cannot be sustained merely on the ground that similarly placed employees were granted HRA.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “the number of vacant Type-IV quarters to which the petitioner is entitled to, was more than the number of eligible officers and thus, in terms of the letters/circulars applicable to the Railway officers entitled to Type-IV quarters, HRA could not have been given to the petitioner from 25.09.2007.”
Conviction Can Be Based Solely On Credible Testimony Of Police Witness: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Modon Urang v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 70
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife, holding that there was no reason to doubt the evidence of the police officer who had seen the appellant hacking the deceased with a weapon, merely because he was a police witness or a chance witness.
The Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar held, “In the present case, we have got no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-5 regarding seeing the incident of the appellant hacking his wife with a dao. There is no whisper or any enmity, ulterior motive or reason given by the appellant, for PW-5 to have given any false evidence.”
Case Name: Pabindra Kumar Das v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 71
The Gauhati High Court has held that where services of an employee are continuously utilised for a long period, payment cannot be denied merely because there was no sanctioned post and such non-payment would be unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights.
The court was hearing a school employee's plea who continued working in a Grade-IV post for nearly 35 years without a sanctioned post and was denied salary after 2005.
Discovery Of New Evidence In Review Petition Can Justify Reopening Second Appeal: Gauhati High Court
Case Name: On The Death Of Bajranglal Modi His Legal Heir Smt. Prem Lota Modi & Anr. v. Sri Raj Kumar Modi & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 72
The Gauhati High Court has held that discovery of new and important evidence, which was not earlier available despite due diligence, can justify review of a judgment and reopening of a second appeal.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita restored a second appeal in an adoption dispute after finding that a newly traced primary school admission register, showing the age of the adopted son at the time of admission, could have a direct bearing on the validity of the adoption and the correctness of the earlier judgment.
Case Name: Dabir Rahman @ Dabibur Rahman v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 73
The Gauhati High Court has held that in proceedings before a Foreigners Tribunal, the burden to prove citizenship lies entirely upon the proceedee and such burden cannot be discharged through vague pleadings, inconsistent voter lists and unproved certificates unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Dabir Rahman challenging a 2018 opinion passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, declaring him to be a foreigner post 25.03.1971.
Case Name: Satish Ray (Mandal) @ Satish Mandal @ Satish Ch Ray v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 74
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, observing that penetrative sexual assault does not necessarily require complete penetration or rupture of hymen, and that the victim's testimony in the present case was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Satish Ray, challenging his conviction arising out of a Special POCSO Case. The appellant had been convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 9 year old girl and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
Case Name: Jiten Engti & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 75
The Gauhati High Court has held that confessions recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC in the presence of a police officer cannot be said to be voluntary and cannot be relied upon as substantive admissible evidence for recording conviction against the accused.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, “In the present case, the confessional statements of the appellants have been made in the presence of a police officer, who was present in the room where the confession was being recorded. The above is accordingly hit by principle no.(ix) framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such, the confessional statements cannot be said to have been properly recorded and as such, they are inadmissible as evidence.”
Case Name: Rezzaqul Hussain v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 76
The Gauhati High Court has held that determination of a candidate's eligibility and suitability for a post primarily lies with the employer, and courts ordinarily do not substitute their own view unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the recruitment criteria.
Justice Robin Phukan, presiding over the case, observed, “Thus, an employer is best suited to determine the eligibility and suitability of a candidate according to the requirements of the post and the nature of work and also to assess whether a candidate meets the post requirements. The Courts ordinarily do not substitute their view for the employer's on suitability, provided the recruitment rules and advertisement are to be followed. It is the employer to determine the eligibility and suitability.”
Case Title: Subhodeep Roy v. Madhu Sudan Koiri & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 77
The Gauhati High Court has held that where two orders are put to challenge, non-consideration of one of the impugned orders would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, pressing over the case, observed, “Be that as it may, it is apparent on perusal of the judgment and order under review that no discussion about the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Executing Court in Misc. (J) Case No.270/2025 has been made in the judgment and order under review. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the order itself and accordingly, the same is required to be vacated.”
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 78
The Gauhati High Court earlier this week directed the Assam Government to pay an additional ₹20 lakh, apart from ₹5 lakh already paid as interim relief, as 'palliative' compensation to the widow of a businessman who was allegedly abducted, brutally tortured and killed by police personnel in 2020.
While awarding compensation under the public law remedy, a bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan took strong exception to the barbaric instances of custodial violence.
Case Name: On the Death of Md. Murad Iman, His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. On the Death of Md. Suleman Sheikh, His Legal Heirs & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 79
The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that a mere entry in jamabandi or chitha, unsupported by a title deed, does not confer any right, title or interest over land.
Justice Kalyan Rai Surana observed, “... though entries in the jamabandi would have some relevance under Regulation 40 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. However, when the plaintiffs claim a legal right to the land, a mere entry of a name of jamabandi or a chitha, not supported by any title deed, would not confer any right whatsoever over the suit land.”
Case Name: Walia Murshida Huda v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 80
The Gauhati High Court has held that mere pendency of a criminal proceeding, without any adjudication of guilt, cannot be a valid basis for indefinitely withholding the original Final MBBS Pass Certificate of a candidate who has successfully completed the MBBS course, statutory internship, and has already been granted registration by the competent authority.
Justice Budi Habung observed, “Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that mere pendency of a criminal proceeding, without there being any adjudication of guilt, cannot by itself consists a valid basis for indefinite withholding of the original Final MBBS Pass certificate, particularly, when the petitioner has successfully completed the Course and statutory internship, and has also been granted registration by the competent authority.”
Under What Circumstances Cancellation of An Examination Is Justified? Answers Gauhati High Court
Case Name : Shri Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 81
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that cancellation of an examination is only justified when the sanctity of the process is compromised at a systemic level and it is impossible to separate tainted candidates from untainted ones; otherwise, segregation of suspicious candidates is required.
Case Name: Bipin Kumar & Anr. v. State of Assam connected with Suraj Kumar Roy v. State of Assam & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 82
The Gauhati High Court has held that separate recoveries of contraband cannot be treated as a single commercial quantity, in the absence of evidence showing that the accused were acting together or were in joint possession of the contraband. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 82]
On that basis, the Court modified the conviction of three appellants under the NDPS Act and reduced their sentence from 15 years' rigorous imprisonment to three and a half years.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “Keeping the above in view, it cannot be said with certainty that the three appellants were jointly transporting the two seizures of Ganja made vide two seizure lists, only on the basis of the evidence of PW-4.”
Case Name: Bikram Pathak And 608 Ors. v. State of Assam And 4 Ors
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 83
The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to expedite the process of framing the necessary criteria and modalities for Rural Health Practitioners/Community Health Professionals and create a separate cadre with pay, grade, health and other service benefits.
While issuing directions to the State, the Justice Soumitra Saikia observed:
“The State will therefore expedite the process for the recommendations sought for from the committee which was already constituted and which had undertaken several meetings and thereafter lay down such criteria and modalities and requirements as may be deemed necessary so that the Rural Health Practitioners/Community Health Practitioners are permitted to undertake their responsibilities as was envisaged under the erstwhile Act of 2004…”
Case Name: On the Death of Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, His Legal Heirs namely Mumtaz Begum & Ors. v. Khurshid Ali Ahmed
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 84
The Gauhati High Court refused to permit a party to file affidavit of evidence on noting that they had taken 11 adjournments, observing that though courts have the discretion to permit filing of evidence after delay, such discretion has to be exercised strictly where repeated adjournments have been granted.
Case title: Mrig Mrinal Dhawan v/s The Union of India & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 85
The Gauhati High Court has referred to the larger bench to decide whether "reasons to believe" to be recorded in writing by Enforcement Directorate's Authorized Officer on the basis of material in his possession to pass a Provisional Attachment Order is confidential in character and whether it must be to be furnished to the affected person.
Justice Manish Choudhury in his order noted that if the reasons to believe, which is to be recorded by the Authorized Officer in writing as per the mandate of Section 5[1] PMLA PMLA for issuing a Provisional Order of Attachment (PAO), is made part of the PAO or simultaneously, then it will not suffer from any jurisdictional error as such reasons to believe are not confidential in nature.