Gauhati High Court judgments

The Gauhati High Court held that a cover note remains valid for 60 days under IRDA regulations, and the pay-and-recover principle prevents insurers from avoiding third-party liability due to a driver's licence violation unless the breach directly caused the accident. The ruling reinforces that statutory victim protection under the Motor Vehicles Act overrides policy defences unconnected to the collision.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that junior engineers with two-year diplomas are similarly situated to earlier beneficiaries and must receive notional seniority from the 2010 notification, directing the government to grant the benefit within two months. This clarifies promotion eligibility for diploma-holding engineers across Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.

Gauhati HC held that on a cyber complaint of a suspicious transaction, a bank may only lien that sum and let the account holder use the rest. It protects traders’ livelihood under Article 21 by barring arbitrary full-account freezes.

The Gauhati High Court held that arrest notices under BNSS sections 47 and 48 omitting grounds of arrest violate Articles 21 and 22, vitiating the arrest and barring NDPS Section 37, thereby granting bail to the accused and upholding fundamental rights.

A newspaper proprietor merely as owner/shareholder cannot be prosecuted for criminal defamation under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Gauhati HC held, shielding passive owners from liability for content they did not create.

Judges in Assam Nagaland Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh will treat medical treatment related FIR delays as non fatal in POCSO trials and defence teams must be prepared to rebut the Section 29 presumption to secure acquittal.

The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.

The Gauhati High Court held that an unexamined school admission register cannot establish a victim’s minority and that ossification test results must be interpreted with a two-year margin in favour of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, clarifying the evidentiary burden for age proof in POCSO prosecutions.

The Gauhati HC held that rejecting a Section 311 CrPC witness-summoning petition may be an intermediate order if it affects the final judgment, allowing a Section 397 CrPC revision to challenge such denial of vital witness evidence.

The Gauhati High Court held that under BNSS 43(5), arrest is effective detention, not formal custody, for the sunset rule. Applying this, it denied bail in an NDPS case with 434.38 g heroin, clarifying arrest timing for bail in drug prosecutions.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a mutation entry based on an unregistered sale deed cannot extinguish the original vendor's title, and clarified that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction relief falls outside the Section 34 Specific Relief Act proviso bar. This protects property owners from losing title through mere revenue entries and preserves access to declaratory relief with ancillary protections.

The Gauhati High Court held that a revision petition is maintainable against a Sessions Judge's interlocutory order rejecting condonation of delay in a Domestic Violence Act appeal. Condoning delays of 123 and 55 days attributed to change of counsel, the Court directed the appeal to be decided on merits, underscoring that beneficial legislation like the DV Act warrants a liberal approach to procedural technicalities to ensure substantive justice for victims.

The court ruled that the arrest memo's missing witness signature, vague grounds of arrest, and failure to inform the family of the specific grounds - as mandated by BNSS Sections 36, 47, and 48 - rendered the arrest illegal. Bail was granted in an NDPS case where the accused was also unrepresented during remand proceedings.

The Gauhati High Court held that an insurer remains liable to pay compensation to third-party victims under the 'pay and recover' principle even when the driver lacked a valid licence, affirming that such a violation does not absolve the insurer of statutory liability. The ruling reinforces Supreme Court precedent that policy breaches by the driver cannot prejudice innocent third parties' rights to compensation.

The Gauhati High Court permitted a medical termination at 27 weeks for a minor sexual assault survivor, holding that the child's best-interest supersedes the 24-week ceiling in the MTP Act. This sets a precedent that statutory gestational limits can be set aside when a minor's health and rights are at stake, affecting future POCSO and MTP cases involving minors.

The Gauhati HC ordered regularisation of Assam Rifles-occupied land and payment of rent arrears and compensation. The ruling benefits the petitioners and landowners, stating that military land occupations must be regularised and compensated.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a Deputy Commissioner cannot set aside a duly registered sale deed, as only a civil court has jurisdiction to annul registration under the Registration Act, 1908. Consequently, the registrar’s authority ends once registration is effected, protecting buyers and sellers from administrative cancellation. This decision safeguards the finality of property transactions in Assam.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a temporary constable who suffers a training-related injury is a member of the CRPF for purposes of rehabilitation and disability pension, overturning his termination. This clarifies that temporary service employees are entitled to pension benefits when permanently incapacitated.

The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.

The Gauhati High Court quashed the April 2025 order cancelling the regularisation of 45 Block Education Officers, holding that appointments must adhere to the statutory recruitment rules and earlier judicial directions. The decision reinstates the officers’ regular status and bars arbitrary revocation.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that DigiLocker documents satisfy the evidentiary standards of the IT Act 2000, making them as valid as paper originals. Consequently, the show-cause notices issued to transport firms over allegedly forged truck papers were struck down, safeguarding entities that rely on electronic records.

The court upheld appeals to the Chief Secretary but invalidated the proviso routing appeals to the Minister-in-Charge when the Chief Secretary doubles as State Election Commissioner, ruling that a constitutional authority exercising statutory powers cannot claim immunity from legislative oversight. This preserves the State Election Commission's quasi-judicial independence in municipal defection cases.

A three-month limit on departmental suspension without statutory review is mandatory; exceeding it infringes Article 21 and renders the suspension void. The ruling protects Nagaland government employees from indefinite ‘deemed suspension’ while investigations are pending.

The Gauhati High Court affirmed that an individual labelled a foreigner must demonstrate Indian citizenship, and that irregularities in service of notice do not invalidate a Foreigners Tribunal’s ex-parte finding. This places the evidential burden on the accused and upholds procedural validity for similar citizenship disputes.