Nominal Index [Citations 86 - 111]

Anjuman Ara Begum v. The Assam Royal Global University 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 86

Aminul Hoque v. The Union of India & 7 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 87

Bimal Baishya & 4 Ors. v. State of Assam & 6 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88

Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 89

Zahirul Haque Laskar v. State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 90

Sri Shibu Thakur v. Kanti Devi & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 91

Farjul Haque @ Md. Faizul @ Fazlul Hoque v. Union of India & 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 92

Dibrugarh University & Anr. v. Lachit Borthakur 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 93

Dr. Anup Kumar Baruah v. The State of Assam 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 94

Nasima Khatun & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 95

Sridham Sarkar & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. (along with Noren Moran & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.) 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 96

Pual Das v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 97

Mallika Devi v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 99

Ranjit Das v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100

Kirona Paira v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 101

Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Assam & 57 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 102

Kartik Rabidas & 2 Others v. State of Assam & 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 103

Kashem Ali Sk. & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 104

Shri Om Prakash Sah v. The State of Nagaland & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 105

Taba Tagia v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 106

Manik Ali & 73 Ors. v. State of Assam & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 107

Dhruba Kumar Saha & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 108

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fakar Uddin Talukdar & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 109

Sudhir Paul v. State of Assam & 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 110

Zofa Welfare Organisation (ZWO) Mizoram v. State of Mizoram & 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 111

Judgments/ Orders This Month

Private University Professor's Termination Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction Unless It Involves Breach Of Statutory/Public Duty: Gauhati HC

Case Name : Anjuman Ara Begum Vs. The Assam Royal Global University

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 86

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private university for termination of an employee arising from a pure contract of service, unless the action involves a public law element or statutory violation.

PAN Card, Voter ID Not Citizenship Proof : Gauhati High Court Declares Man Foreigner Despite Producing 15 Documents

Case title: AMINUL HOQUE vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 87

The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring a man as a foreigner, observing that despite exhibiting 15 documents he was unable to prove that he is an Indian Citizen as per provisions of Foreigners Act.

The court was hearing the petitioner Aminul Hoque's plea challenging a 28.02.2019 opinion passed by the Foreigners Tribunal which held that the petitioner had failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act to prove that he is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. For context, Section 9 states that onus of proving that a person is not a foreigner shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, lie upon the person.

Consequential Demolition Order Can't Be Challenged Without Challenging Original Demolition Notice: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Bimal Baishya & 4 Ors. v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88

The Gauhati High Court has held that a consequential demolition order cannot be challenged in isolation without assailing the original demolition order on which it is founded. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88]

Declining to interfere with a demolition schedule issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for removal of an allegedly unauthorised construction, the Court observed that the impugned order was merely consequential to an earlier demolition order passed under Section 88 of the GMDA Act, 1985, which the petitioners had not challenged.

No Blanket Exemption From Royalty Payable For Earth Excavated And Reused At Project Site: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 89

The Gauhati High Court has declined to interfere with a forest royalty demand, holding that where the competent authority has undertaken inspection, verification of records and afforded opportunity to the contractor, the demand does not warrant interference under Article 226 merely because the factual determination is disputed. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 89]

Justice Kardak Etex, pressing over the case observed, “The contention of the petitioner that no royalty is payable for earth excavated and re-used within the same site cannot be accepted as a blanket proposition in the facts of the present case. The applicability of the said principle depends upon proper verification of source-wise excavation and utilisation, supported by contemporaneous measurement records and engineering data. In the present case, the respondents have recorded that the claim of internal utilisation is not fully substantiated by documentary evidence in respect of the entire quantity.”

Section 145 CrPC Can't Be Used To Evict Person Whose Possession Is Admitted: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Zahirul Haque Laskar v. State of Assam & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 90

The Gauhati High Court has held that where the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land is an admitted fact from the pleadings of the respondent himself, there is no bona fide dispute as regards possession and, therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC cannot be invoked. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 90]

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, observed, “The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land must be regarded as an admitted fact in view of the pleadings of the respondent herein in his application before the learned Magistrate. Hence, there is no bona fide dispute as regards the factum of possession of the disputed land.”

Will Must Be Proved In Accordance With Law, Mere Production Or Marking As Exhibit Not Enough To Grant Probate: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Sri Shibu Thakur v. Kanti Devi & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 91

The Gauhati High Court has held that production of the original Will by itself is not sufficient for grant of probate unless the Will is proved in accordance with law, observing that mere exhibition of a certified copy or production of the original without proving its execution and due attestation cannot sustain a probate. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 91]

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, presiding over the case observed, “The documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. Mere admission of a document in evidence and marking the same as Exhibit does not amount to proof thereof. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before acting on the said document.”

Gauhati High Court Upholds Foreigner Declaration, Says Contradictory Testimony Can't Be Excused On Basis Of Unproven Mental Illness

Case Name: Farjul Haque @ Md. Faizul @ Fazlul Hoque v. Union of India & 5 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 92

The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring a man to be foreigner of post 25.03.1971 stream, while holding that contradictory statements made by him during the proceedings could not be explained on the basis of an unproven claim of mental illness.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Shamima Jahan observed that a mere prescription from a mental health institute, without any material establishing that the petitioner was suffering from a mental illness, was insufficient to explain the inconsistencies in his testimony.

Dismissal On Technical Grounds Means Employee Remains 'In Service' For Subsistence Allowance, Rules Gauhati HC

Case Name : Dibrugarh University and Anr. v. Lachit Borthakur

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 93

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that when a punishment order is set aside on a technical ground and the matter is remanded for a fresh decision, the employee is deemed to be in service and entitled to subsistence allowance but not automatic back wages for the intervening period.

Groping Patient's Breasts Not Part Of Routine Examination For Menstrual Problems: Gauhati High Court Upholds Doctor's Conviction

Case title: DR. ANUP KUMAR BARUAH v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 94

The Gauhati High Court has upheld an order convicting a doctor for outraging the modesty of a patient by groping her breasts during a medical examination for irregular periods, holding that his conduct was "absurd" and cannot be termed as "routine examination" by a gynaecologist to cure irregular menstruation.

In doing so the court said that statement of the victim was sufficient to hold an accused guilty of any offence relating to her modesty, and that minor contradictions in evidence did not dent the prosecution's case.

Employees' Compensation Act | Gauhati High Court Enhances Award After Finding Commissioner Ignored Employer's Admission On Driver's Salary

Case Title: Nasima Khatun & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 95

The Gauhati High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a deceased driver after holding that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, committed perversity by ignoring the employer's admission regarding the deceased's monthly salary while assessing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed the appeal and increased the compensation from ₹5,81,280 to ₹8,43,680, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

No Bar On Trade In Ornamental Fish Species Not Protected Under Wildlife Law: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Sridham Sarkar & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors. (along with Noren Moran & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.)

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 96

The Gauhati High Court has held that there is no bar on fishing, cultivation, trade or business in ornamental fish species not protected under wildlife laws. It clarified that the prohibition continues to apply to Channa barca, an endangered species included in the Schedule to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Court also held that there was no requirement to constitute an expert committee to distinguish Channa barca from similar ornamental fish species, observing that sufficient scientific literature for such identification is already available with the Zoological Survey of India.

Notice To Existing Co-Owner Mandatory Before Mutation Of Land Purchased Through Sale Deed: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Pual Das v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 97

The Gauhati High Court has held that a mutation granted without issuing notice to an existing co-owner of the land is contrary to Section 52 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Court declined to interfere with the Assam Board of Revenue's order setting aside such mutation, while clarifying that the purchaser remains at liberty to seek mutation afresh in accordance with law.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Devashis Baruah, who observed, "In the instant case, as the Respondent No.4's name was already mutated along with the vendors of the Petitioner in respect to the same plot of land. Irrespective of the fact that only a portion of the land have been sold to the Petitioner, it was therefore the requirement of law that notice ought to have been issued to the Respondent No.4."

Govt Employee's Failure To Obtain Prior Permission For Higher Studies Is Misconduct, But Not Ground To Invalidate Degree: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Mallika Devi v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 99

The Gauhati High Court has held that while a government employee's failure to obtain prior permission to pursue higher studies amounts to misconduct under Rule 13 of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, it cannot be a ground to invalidate a degree obtained from a recognised university.

Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed:

“The violation of Rule 13 would amount to a misconduct for which the employer may draw a disciplinary proceeding against the government employee. The provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1965 cannot be invoked to invalidate any degree acquired by a Government employee, the course of study for which, the Government employee had prosecuted from a recognized institution, on the ground that it was so pursued without previous permission from the authorities.”

Amassing Disproportionate Assets Not Relatable To Discharge Of Public Functions; Sanction U/S 17A PC Act Not Needed: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Ranjit Das v. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not required before investigating allegations of disproportionate assets, as such allegations are not relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 100]

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita made the observation while dismissing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by retired Northeast Frontier Railway Deputy Chief Engineer Ranjit Das, seeking quashing of the FIR, prosecution sanction, chargesheet and criminal proceedings pending against him in a disproportionate assets case.

Gauhati High Court Upholds Entry Permits To Visit Nagaland Districts, Says 150-Year-Old Law Still Valid

Case Title: Kirona Paira v Union of India

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 101

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the notifications extending Inner Line Permit to Nagaland's largest city and commercial hub Dimapur, along with Chumoukedima and Niuland districts in the State, holding that Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) of 1873 continues to remain a valid law under the Constitution.

For context, the Inner Line Permit (ILP), which is stated to derive authority from BEFR, is an official travel document issued by the Government of India to allow Indian citizens to enter protected areas in Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

Assam Settlement Rules | Revenue Authorities Can't Evict Encroachers From Private Land: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Assam & 57 Ors.,

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 102

The Gauhati High Court has held that the power of ejectment under Rule 18 of the Assam Settlement Rules is confined to the categories of land specified under Rule 18(2) and cannot be exercised in respect of private patta land. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 102]

Justice Devashis Baruah presiding over the case, held, "It is the opinion of this Court that the power conferred by the Deputy Commissioner or any officer authorized on his behalf to carry out any eviction/ejectment would be only limited to the lands specified in Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules."

Section 21A Registration Act | Land Transfer NOC Must Be Issued Or Rejected By Speaking Order Within 30 Days: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Kartik Rabidas and 2 Others v. State of Assam and 4 Others

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 103

The Gauhati High Court has held that Section 21A of the Registration Act, 1908 imposes a statutory mandate upon the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to either issue a No Objection Certificate for the transfer of immovable property or pass a speaking order rejecting it with reasons, within thirty days of receiving the application.

Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, held, “It is a statutory mandate under Section 21A of the Registration Act for the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to either issue a No Objection Certificate [NOC] containing the description of the immovable property to be transferred or to pass a speaking order with reasons thereof within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application in case NOC is not issued within the prescribed period of thirty days.”

Mutation Doesn't Create Or Extinguish Title; Writ Against Cancellation Of Mutation Not Maintainable: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Kashem Ali Sk & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 104

The Gauhati High Court has held that a mutation entry does not create or extinguish title over land and that where an order cancelling mutation is appealable under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the High Court would not entertain a writ petition.

Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over the case, observed, "Mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over land. A Mutation Order does not have any presumptive value on the title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is granted, to pay the land revenue."

Gauhati High Court Upholds Teacher's POCSO Conviction For Touching Minor's Body With Stethoscope, Pressing Breast & Private Parts

Case Title: Shri Om Prakash Sah v. The State of Nagaland & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 105

The Gauhati High Court last week upheld the conviction of a school teacher under POCSO Act holding that inappropriately touching a minor's body using a stethoscope, touching her breast, applying ointment on abdomen and touching her private parts on pretext of giving medical examination amounts to sexual harassment.

Arunachal Petrol Pump Dealership | Author Of Tender Document Best Placed To Interpret Its Terms: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Taba Tagia v Union of India, 2026:GAU-AP:688-DB

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 106

The Gauhati High Court has held that constitutional courts should ordinarily defer to the interpretation placed on tender documents by the authority that framed them and should interfere only when such interpretation is arbitrary, irrational, malafide or perverse.

Assam Settlement Rules | Authorities Must Consider Individual Claims Before Evicting People From Reserved Land: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Manik Ali & 73 Ors. v. State of Assam & 3 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 107

The Gauhati High Court has held that where a person receives a notice alleging unauthorised occupation of land reserved under Rule 18(2) of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the competent authority must consider the person's representation and supporting documents and pass an individual speaking order determining the person's status before taking any further action under law.

Gauhati High Court Directs Assam Govt To Hold Silchar Municipal Corporation Elections Within 2 Months

Case Title: Dhruba Kumar Saha & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 108

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to conduct elections to the Silchar Municipal Corporation expeditiously and preferably within two months, after noting that the revision of electoral rolls had been completed and there was no longer any impediment to holding the polls.

100% Functional Disability Can Be Awarded Despite 10% Physical Disability If Head Injury Destroys Earning Capacity: Gauhati High Court

Case Name: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fakar Uddin Talukdar & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 109

The Gauhati High Court has held that 100% functional disability and loss of earning capacity can be assessed despite only 10% permanent physical disability where a head injury renders the victim incapable of gainful employment.

Dismissing an appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company against a compensation award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karimganj, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita reiterated that the percentage of permanent physical disability assessed by a medical board cannot be mechanically equated with the percentage of loss of earning capacity.

Assam Land Policy | Long Possession Of Govt Land Doesn't Confer Right To Settlement: Gauhati High Court

Case Title: Sudhir Paul v. State of Assam & 5 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 110

The Gauhati High Court has held that long possession or mere occupation of Government land does not confer any right to obtain settlement of such land under the Assam Land Policy, 2019.

Justice Devashis Baruah observed, "This Court also takes note of Clause 14.3 of the Assam Land Policy, 2019 which categorically stipulates that there is no right of the occupier of the land to get settlement over the land under his occupation merely because he is in occupation of the Government land."

Gauhati High Court Closes PIL Seeking Establishment Of Mizoram State Human Rights Commission After State Constitutes Body

Case Title: Zofa Welfare Organisation (ZWO) Mizoram v. State of Mizoram & 5 Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 111

The Gauhati High Court at Aizawl closed a PIL seeking a directions to the Mizoram government to establish State Human Rights Commission, after the government informed that it has appointed the Chairperson as well as two members and that appointment of the staff will be finalised in a short while.

This PIL was filed with a prayer to set up the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) as per provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.