Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 26 - February 01, 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 13-19]Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala Khatun 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17M/s Vertex Construction v. The State of Nagaland & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 18Udit Narayan Purkayastha v State of Assam & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 19Judgments/ Orders This WeekWrit Court Under Article 226 Examines Decision-Making Process, Not Merits: Gauhati High Court Refuses To Interfere With PDS Licence CancellationCase: Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and Anr. v The State of Assam and 3 Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 13The Gauhati High Court declined to interfere with the cancellation of a fair price shop (PDS) licence, holding that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision, and finding that no case for interference was made out.Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, said, “The certiorari jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be confined to the decision making process and not to the merits of the decision. In other words, the examination is on the aspect as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration or as to whether the impugned decision is based on extraneous factors and irrelevant consideration. The aspect of jurisdiction of the authority passing the order may also be examined which is not the case in hand. There are also no allegations of mala fide in passing of the impugned order.”Bar On Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Lifted Where Co-Accused Acquitted On Same Evidence: Gauhati High CourtCase: Md. Kari alias Md. Jiyauddin v Union of IndiaLL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 14The Gauhati High Court granted bail to an NDPS accused after holding that, once the co-accused in the same case (tried separately) had been acquitted and such findings had not been disturbed in appeal, the Court was bound to proceed on the basis that those findings were valid for the purpose of bail, thereby satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, observed, “Till such finding is disturbed in appeal, the Court considering the bail application must proceed on the basis that the said findings are valid ones, as in a bail application, this Court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of such findings. In that view of the matter, as a logical corollary, it would be prudent for the Court to hold that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and therefore, the first condition stipulated under Section 37 NDPS Act stands satisfied.”Marriage Can't Be Dissolved By Way Of Affidavit Made Before Notary: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Tufazzul Hussain v. Fulmala KhatunLL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 15The Gauhati High Court has held that a marriage cannot be dissolved by way of an affidavit made before a Notary, and that in the absence of any material showing invocation of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, a claim of divorce based merely on a notarised affidavit cannot be accepted. Setting aside the Family Court's maintenance order, the Court found that the Respondent's earlier marriage had not been shown to be lawfully dissolved.Oral Evidence Can't Prove Citizenship Without Documentary Linkage: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Challenge To Foreigners' Tribunal OpinionCase Title: Kurban Ali v Union of India & Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 16The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Foreigners' Tribunal opinion, holding that the petitioner had “miserably failed” to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens, and finding no perversity or error on the face of the record in the Tribunal's decision declaring him a foreigner A division bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, presiding over the case, observed, “Under the circumstances, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he could be connected to the voters whose names appeared in the voters list of 1966 (Ext.A.), petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he is a citizen of India and born out of bona fide citizens.”S.143A NI Act | No Interim Compensation In Cheque Bounce Case If Accused's Defence Is Prima Facie Plausible: Gauhati High CourtCase Title: Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Anr.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 17The Gauhati High Court has held that where there are disputed questions requiring adjudication through evidence, it may not be prudent to grant interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act at that stage.Justice Pranjal Das accordingly set...

Gauhati High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 26 - February 01, 2026

Bhavya Singh

Tags