Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 12 - January 18, 2026

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

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Civil Judge Can't Authenticate Talaq, Grant Decree Dissolving Muslim Marriage; Family Court Is Competent Forum: Gauhati High Court

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.

Age Limit Under Surrogacy Act Valid, Can't Be Relaxed Just Because Couple's First Attempt Failed: Gauhati 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.

Contract Employee Subjected To Disciplinary Rules Can't Be Terminated Without Departmental Enquiry: Gauhati HC

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.

Reservation Norms Can't Be Introduced Midway To Scrap Completed Selection Process: Gauhati High Court

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.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied Because Deceased Had Less Than 3 Yrs Of Service Left: Gauhati High Court

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.”

Lok Adalat Settlement Must Be With Parties' Free Consent, Counsel Cannot Compromise Case Without Written Authority: Gauhati High Court

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.”