Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 02 - 08, 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 20-24]

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

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Police Encounter Was Avoidable Had State Acted Earlier: Gauhati High Court Awards ₹25 Lakh Compensation To Victim's Family

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.”

Magistrate Must Examine Complainant, Witnesses On Oath Before Issuing Notice To Accused U/S 223 BNSS: Gauhati High Court

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.”

'Fixing Cut-Off Date Not Per Se Illegal': Gauhati High Court Upholds Assam Govt's SOP On Compassionate Appointment Claims

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.”

Six Members In First Meeting Fulfills Quorum To Elect President Of Village Council Under Assam Panchayat Rules: Gauhati High Court

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.

POCSO Probes Must Be Child-Friendly; Sensitise Investigators To Ensure 'Truth Emerges Without Ambiguity': Gauhati High Court

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.