Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 01 - December 07, 2025

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 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.Executive Need Not Wait For Rules When Act Lays Procedure: Gauhati High Court Upholds Itanagar Mayor Reservation For Scheduled Tribe Women Case Title: Bharat Cheda v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 59While 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.”Contingency Driver Not Entitled To Seek Regularisation Or Promotion Against Direct Recruitment: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Robin Padung v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & OrsCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 61The 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.No Sexual Overtone: Gauhati High Court Quashes S.354 IPC Charge Against MLA Jignesh Mevani Accused Of Outraging Woman Cop's ModestyCase Title: Jignesh Mevani @ Jignesh N. Mevani vs. State of Assam & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 63The 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. Executive Can't Enforce DV Order: Gauhati High Court Quashes Annulment Of Husband's Land Possession CertificateCase Title Smti Likha Nap & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 63The 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 ...

Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 01 - December 07, 2025

Bhavya Singh

Tags