Gauhati High Court judgments

Gauhati High Court rules that voluntary intoxication cannot absolve an accused under Section 376(3) IPC and POCSO Act, upholding a 20-year sentence for raping a minor. The court also directed victim compensation within three months, reinforcing the irrelevance of intoxication as a defence in sexual offences against children.

Gauhati High Court upholds the application of the Inner Line Permit regime to Dimapur, Chumoukedima, and Niuland under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, affirming its continuity under Article 372. The judgment rejects challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 21, clarifying that the permit system constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) to protect tribal rights and public order.

Gauhati High Court rules that land acquisitions for pipeline projects under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act must follow the compensation framework of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The judgment ensures landowners receive fair compensation as per the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, impacting all right-of-user acquisitions by government entities.

Gauhati HC acquitted the accused in a POCSO case, ruling that dying declarations alone cannot sustain conviction without assessing the victim's cognitive fitness, linguistic clarity, and procedural compliance. The judgment sets a precedent requiring courts to apply stricter scrutiny to dying declarations, particularly in cases involving severe injuries or minors.

Gauhati High Court reinforces that compensation under the National Highway Act requires legally valid land titles. Village Council passes, even for agricultural purposes, do not establish title under Mizoram land laws, leaving landowners without remedy for acquisition. The ruling underscores the need for clear documentation in land disputes affecting infrastructure projects.

Gauhati High Court reaffirms that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proving citizenship lies entirely on the proceedee. Failure to discharge this burden through contemporaneous and authenticated documents renders the Foreigners Tribunal's declaration of 'foreigner' status legally sound, impacting citizenship disputes in Assam and border states.

Gauhati High Court sets aside a trial court order dismissing an injunction application despite respondent's consent, ruling that consent orders under Order XXXIX CPC must accurately reflect the parties' agreement. The judgment restrains the transfer of 861,918 shares in a joint demat account, reinforcing that courts cannot alter agreed terms unless they violate statutory provisions.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that excluding Assam Police Radio Organisation personnel from enhanced grade pay granted to equivalent ranks in other police units violates Article 14. The judgment mandates immediate payment of Rs. 7,400 and Rs. 6,800 grade pay w.e.f. April 1, 2016, setting a precedent for equitable pay structures within state police forces and closing a systemic gap in service benefits.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that citizenship claims under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 cannot be sustained by vague written statements or documents lacking contemporaneity and proper authentication. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for individuals before Foreigners Tribunals, reinforcing that mere possession of old papers is insufficient without verifiable, time-bound proof of presence in India before 1971.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a state’s prolonged, uninterrupted acceptance of an employee’s service-spanning over two decades-creates a legitimate expectation protected under Article 14, making it unconstitutional to later deny pension and salary benefits. This sets a critical precedent for public employees facing retroactive service challenges after decades of state recognition.

Gauhati High Court rules that seniority in government service accrues from the date of actual joining, not from the publication of the select list or appointment during litigation. This holding reinforces the principle that procedural delays or disputes do not alter the substantive basis for seniority determination, impacting all government employees.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a casual appointment made under a compassionate employment scheme cannot remain temporary if the applicant fulfills all policy conditions. Denying regularization defeats the humanitarian intent of the scheme and amounts to arbitrary discrimination under Article 14, entitling the beneficiary to immediate regularization with all consequential benefits.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that partners of a firm can be penalized under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for retaining benefits from fraudulent transactions, even if they are not registered taxable persons. This extends liability beyond the entity to individuals who profit from tax evasion, and applies retroactively to pre-2021 transactions if notice was issued after the provision came into force, significantly broadening enforcement scope for GST fraud cases.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that full-time, exclusive commission-based service in the Assam Registration Department qualifies as pensionable service under the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969, once regularized by the state. This sets a critical precedent for thousands of temporary government workers across Assam who served on commission before formal appointment, entitling them to old pension scheme benefits.

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the legality of issuing consolidated GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years, as long as the statutory limitation period for each year’s tax liability remains intact. This ruling strengthens administrative efficiency for tax authorities while safeguarding taxpayer rights against time-barred demands, setting a critical precedent for GST compliance and audit practices across Northeast India.

Gauhati High Court rules that statutory relaxations in cut-off dates for OBC (NCL) certificates override conflicting clauses in CAPF recruitment advertisements. The judgment mandates reconsideration of candidates rejected solely on technical grounds, reinforcing reservation benefits as a legal entitlement.

Gauhati HC rules that repeated appointments to a clan based on land ownership donations violate Articles 14 and 16, mandating open advertisement for public posts. The court directed age relaxation for the petitioner due to litigation delays, setting a precedent against hereditary public employment.

Gauhati High Court upholds Foreigners Tribunal's order rejecting citizenship claims where the petitioner failed to establish consistent ancestral linkage through reliable documentary evidence. The ruling reinforces that oral testimony alone, without corroborating documents, is insufficient to prove citizenship under the Foreigners Act, impacting citizenship verification processes in Assam.

Gauhati High Court quashed the appointment of a Registrar where the candidate oversaw his own selection process, holding that institutional bias and conflict of interest vitiate public appointments. The ruling reinforces that fairness in recruitment is not just a procedural formality but a constitutional mandate under natural justice principles.

Gauhati High Court upholds conviction under POCSO Act, ruling that a school certificate holds primacy over medical evidence for age determination, as prescribed under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The decision reinforces the statutory hierarchy of evidence, impacting prosecutions involving minors where age is disputed.

Gauhati High Court upholds the 180-day validity window for OBC certificates issued after the application deadline, reinforcing legitimate expectation in recruitment. The ruling mandates the Staff Selection Commission to reconsider the candidate's application under the 2017 notification, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in public employment.

Gauhati HC ruled that industrial tribunals cannot dismiss reference proceedings solely due to procedural delays, emphasizing the statutory duty to adjudicate disputes on merits. The judgment reinforces that employers cannot evade adjudication by exploiting delays, ensuring workers' rights to fair dispute resolution under labour laws.

Gauhati High Court set aside a POCSO conviction where the trial court failed to conduct a de novo trial as directed, depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense. The ruling reinforces that procedural compliance with remand orders is not merely technical but a fundamental safeguard under natural justice.

Gauhati High Court rules that a summary notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot replace the statutory Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the AGST Act. The court invalidated all consequential actions, including registration suspension, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural fairness in tax proceedings.