Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Under Sections 23 & 24 R.P. Act Mandatory Before Article 226 Writ Petition : Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has reiterated that aggrieved voters must exhaust statutory remedies under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores the mandatory procedural safeguards for electoral roll corrections and the limited scope of judicial intervention where alternative remedies exist.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, seventeen residents of Village Old Solamona, District Sribhumi, Assam, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the deletion of their names from the electoral roll of 125 Patherkandi Legislative Assembly Constituency (LAC). The petitioners claimed they had been voting in previous elections and possessed valid Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Their names appeared in the final electoral roll published on 10.02.2026 but were inexplicably absent from the ECI’s official portal.

Key Facts

• The petitioners reside at Village Old Solamona, P.O. Kotamoni Bazar, District Sribhumi, Assam
• They were enrolled voters in 125 Patherkandi LAC and cast votes in previous elections
• A Special Revision of Electoral Rolls, 2026 was conducted in Assam with 01.01.2026 as the qualifying date
• The draft electoral roll was published on 27.12.2025, inviting claims and objections
• After disposal of claims and objections on 02.02.2026, the final electoral roll was published on 10.02.2026
• The petitioners’ names were included in the final roll but later deleted from the ECI’s portal without notice
• The Assam Legislative Assembly Election was notified for 09.04.2026, with the last date for nominations set as 23.03.2026

Procedural History

• 23.03.2026: Writ petition (WP(C)/1666/2026) filed before the Gauhati High Court
• 31.03.2026: Hearing conducted; respondents instructed to verify the petitioners’ status
• Respondents confirmed deletion of petitioners’ names on grounds of permanent relocation outside the constituency

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners:

• Argued that the deletion was illegal and arbitrary, as they continue to reside at their registered addresses
• Contended that no prior opportunity of hearing was afforded before deletion, violating Section 22 of the R.P. Act
• Submitted that the deletion would disenfranchise them in the upcoming elections

For the Respondents:

• Contended that the petitioners permanently shifted outside the constituency, justifying deletion
• Argued that the petitioners bypassed statutory remedies under Sections 23 and 24 of the R.P. Act
• Submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable due to factual disputes requiring adjudication

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• Restoration of their names in the electoral roll of 125 Patherkandi LAC
• Quashing of the deletion order
• Direction to the ECI to allow them to vote in the 09.04.2026 elections

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable where aggrieved voters have statutory remedies under Sections 23 and 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 for challenging deletions from electoral rolls.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Relied on the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 22 of the R.P. Act, which requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deletion
• Argued that the deletion was arbitrary, as no notice or verification was conducted
• Contended that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and disenfranchisement without due process violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution

For the Respondents

• Cited Section 23(3) of the R.P. Act, which bars amendments to electoral rolls after the last date for nominations until election completion
• Argued that the petitioners failed to exhaust statutory remedies under Section 23 (application for inclusion) and Section 24 (appeals)
• Submitted that the writ petition involved factual disputes (e.g., relocation claims) unsuitable for Article 226 jurisdiction

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the statutory framework under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, emphasizing the following principles:

1. Procedural Safeguards Under Section 22:

   "As per the provisions contained in Section 22, if any deletion of a person’s name from the electoral roll is to be made on the grounds mentioned in clause [a], clause [b] and clause [c] by the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, then such deletion can be made only after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed [that is, deletion] to be taken in relation to him, that too, after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed."

   The Court noted that the petitioners’ allegation of no prior hearing raised a prima facie violation of Section 22, but this did not automatically entitle them to writ relief.

2. Statutory Remedies Under Sections 23 and 24:

   • Section 23(1) allows any person whose name is not in the electoral roll to apply for inclusion
   • The Electoral Registration Officer must decide such applications after proper verification
   • Section 24 provides for two appeals: first to the District Magistrate and second to the Chief Electoral Officer

   The Court held that these remedies were adequate, efficacious, and mandatory to exhaust before approaching writ jurisdiction.

3. Judicial Restraint in Factual Disputes: The Court observed that the deletion of names involved factual determinations (e.g., whether the petitioners had relocated), which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. It cited the well-settled principle that Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory remedies where factual adjudication is required.

4. Election Timeline Constraints: The Court noted that the last date for nominations was 23.03.2026, and the election was to be completed by 06.05.2026. Section 23(3) bars inclusion applications after the last nomination date until election completion. Thus, the petitioners’ applications under Section 23 could only be considered after 06.05.2026.

The Verdict

The writ petition was disposed of with directions, not a substantive relief. The Court held:

1. The petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies under Section 23 of the R.P. Act before invoking Article 226
2. The petitioners were directed to file applications under Section 23(1) before the Electoral Registration Officer within fifteen days from 06.05.2026
3. The Electoral Registration Officer was directed to consider the applications in accordance with Section 23 and Rule 26 of the Registration Rules, adhering to statutory timelines
4. If the Electoral Registration Officer finds merit in any application, inclusion orders must be passed
5. If any application is rejected, the officer must record reasons in writing and communicate the order to the petitioner forthwith
6. Aggrieved petitioners may appeal under Section 24 against any rejection

What This Means For Similar Cases

Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Is Mandatory

• Practitioners must advise clients that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available where statutory remedies (e.g., Sections 23 and 24 of the R.P. Act) exist
• Courts will decline to entertain writ petitions involving factual disputes (e.g., relocation claims) unless statutory remedies are exhausted
• Exceptional circumstances (e.g., patent illegality, jurisdictional errors, or violation of natural justice) may warrant writ relief, but mere procedural irregularities are insufficient

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• Section 22 mandates a prior hearing before deletion from electoral rolls. Authorities must comply with this requirement to avoid legal challenges
• Section 23(3) imposes a strict timeline for inclusion applications. Voters must file applications before the last nomination date to avoid delays
• Rule 26 of the Registration Rules requires the Electoral Registration Officer to:
  • Post applications in a conspicuous place and invite objections within seven days
  • Decide applications expeditiously and record reasons for rejection

When Writ Jurisdiction May Be Invoked

• If the Electoral Registration Officer fails to decide an application under Section 23 within a reasonable time
• If the appeal process under Section 24 is denied or unreasonably delayed
• If the deletion order is patently illegal (e.g., no notice, no verification, or mala fide intent)
• If the right to vote is irreparably prejudiced due to imminent elections and no alternative remedy exists

Practitioners should:

• First file applications under Section 23 and exhaust appeals under Section 24 before approaching courts
• Document all communications with electoral authorities to prove compliance with procedural requirements
• Challenge deletions promptly to avoid timeline bars under Section 23(3)
• Seek interim relief in writ petitions only where irreparable harm is demonstrated