Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 58-67]Judgments/ Orders This WeekCustomary Court Can't Enlarge Strength Of Bench After Hearing Ends Or Back Date Its Orders: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak/Mayi & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 58The Gauhati High Court has held that an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court cannot enlarge its forum after...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 58-67]
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Rippe Mayi v. Tumli Nyorak/Mayi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 58
The Gauhati High Court has held that an Inter-Village Territorial Customary Court cannot enlarge its forum after the conclusion of hearing or retrospectively date a later decision without granting a fresh hearing.
Justice Budi Habung presiding over the case, observed, “Such enlargement of the forum after conclusion of hearing and retrospective dating of a later decision without further hearing, cannot be accepted, either, under the customary practices, or, the Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.”
“The impugned procedure adopted by the Keba/Customary Court amounts to a violation of natural justice. Passing a decision in the absence of one party, especially, when the previous proceeding had concluded with a split decision, renders the order unsustainable in law,” the Court added.
Case Title: Bharat Cheda v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 59
While dismissing a PIL filed against the reservation of the Itanagar Mayor's post for APST (Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes) women, the Gauhati High Court has held that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to reserve the post by draw of lots was valid under the proviso to Section 53(1) of the Arunachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 2019.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Pranjal Das observed, “the Court is inclined to hold that that decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar Capital Complex, to prescribe for reservation of the post of Mayor for Women, cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the provision of proviso to Section 53(1) of the 2019 Act and therefore, merely because the State Legislature has not framed the procedure, would not be a good ground to annul the impugned intimation letter…If the Act provides for a certain procedure, in the absence of Rules, the action required to be taken by the Executive is not dependent on the framing of Rules or procedure.”
Case Title: Robin Padung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 61
The Gauhati High Court has held that a contingency driver cannot claim either regularisation or promotion into a vacancy that is earmarked for direct recruitment under the applicable Recruitment Rules and the post-based roster.
Presiding over the case, Justice Manish Choudhury, observed, “Though a right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right but such right to be considered for promotion is to be considered in terms of the extant Recruitment Rules. A set of rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are constitutional rules and they have the same force as a statute, though made by the executive.”
“It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CMD/Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others vs. Mishri Lal and others, [2011] 14 SCC 739, that since a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution is legislative in character, the rule can be amended, even with retrospective effect,” the Court further held.
Case Title: Jignesh Mevani @ Jignesh N. Mevani vs. State of Assam & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 63
The Gauhati High Court has discharged Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani from the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman police officer, holding that the materials collected during investigation did not reveal any act carrying a sexual overtone capable of attracting Section 354 IPC.
The court however retained the charged against Mevani under IPC Section 352 (Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation). The case arose from allegations by the woman officer that Mevani used slang words at her and pushed her while being escorted from Guwahati to Kokrajhar in a police vehicle following his arrest in another matter in 2022.
Case Title Smti Likha Nap & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 63
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by appellate authority under Arunachal Pradesh government's land management department which had cancelled a land possession certificate issued to a husband, based on alleged violation of interim order by the trial court in favour of his estranged wife under domestic violence act.
In doing so the court observed that the appellate authority lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order, and any order lacking jurisdiction is null and void.
Case Title: Dabin Soki @ Tabin Soki vs. Smti. Yama Yekar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 64
The Gauhati High Court has held that once government-allotted land is transferred and the transfer is approved through issuance of a Land Pass-Book, the allottee continues to hold right and title over the land until the allotment is cancelled or withdrawn by the competent authority.
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the case, observed, “this is not agreeable that the Land Pass-Book is only for the purpose of payment of revenue and fiscal record and not for the purpose of conferring any right, title over the allotted land by the Government. The Land Pass-Book allotted in the instant case cannot be equated with the Jamabandi, Patta or Khata as has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.”
Case Title: The State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Legam Takaliang & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 65
While allowing a criminal petition filed by the State challenging the trial court's order discharging six respondents accused of dragging two rape-and-murder suspects out of the Tezu Police Station in Arunachal Pradesh in 2018 and lynching them in public, the Gauhati High Court has held that the material collected during investigation created grave suspicion against the accused and therefore required a full trial on the charges, including conspiracy, obstructing public servants, and murder.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Pranjal Das, who observed, “In the instant case, in my considered opinion, the grave suspicion test is satisfied in favor of the prosecution, rather than that of the accused. The materials revealed by the investigation constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents/accused for these penal provisions also, including section 302 IPC. Whether the involvement of the respondents/accused in these offenses is actually proved or not, would be a matter of evidence during the trial and its appreciation by the trial court.”
Case Title: Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health, Tezpur v. M/s Green Alliance Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 66
The Gauhati High Court has held that once a supplier invokes Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), the statutory dispute-resolution mechanism under the Act overrides the arbitration clause contained in a Government e-Marketplace (GeM) contract, including the agreed seat of arbitration.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Manish Choudhury, who observed, “Once the respondent no.1 having located in Delhi, claiming to be a 'supplier', has invoked the jurisdiction of 'MSEFC', Delhi, the statutory provisions contained in Section 18 of 'MSMED Act' would override the Arbitration Clause contained in 16.2 of GeM Contract.”
Case title - Asom Andolan Sangrami Manch vs. UOI and 13 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 67
The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought the strict implementation of the deportation clauses of the Assam Accord, 1985, in view of the pendency of similar substantial issues before the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, disposed of the petition filed by the Assam Andolon Sangrami Mancha, which had raised alarm over the "insignificant number of deportations" despite the legal framework of the Assam Accord.
Other Developments
The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, has launched its official mobile application, the GHCKB App, to help make court information easier, faster, and more accessible for the public.
The app was launched on Wednesday by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar at the Multi-Purpose Hall, Bar Room, Kohima, in the presence of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury.
While delivering his inaugural address, Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar said the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench is the first High Court in the Northeast to roll out such an application, and highlighted that it was made entirely in-house. Calling the app citizen-friendly, he said it will help people track cases in real time, get updates, and stay informed even from remote places.