Six Members In First Meeting Fulfills Quorum To Elect President Of Village Council Under Assam Panchayat Rules: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that the presence of 6 ward members would fulfill the quorum of the first meeting to elect President to a Gaon (Village) Panchayat as required under Rule 46 (3) of Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules after amendment to the state panchayat law. The court said that the quorum requirement must be understood in light of amendment to Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act in 2023, and thus restored the election of President of Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat which had been earlier quashed by the District Commissioner, Biswanath. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, presiding over the case, observed, “The purpose of laying down a quorum is towards furtherance of the requirement to elect a President amongst the elected Ward members of a Gaon Panchayat. Section 6 of the Act of 1994 has undergone a major amendment in the year 2023 and the earlier position where the President was directly elected by the people has been amended and presently, such President is elected by the elected Ward members.”“The Rule 46 (3) quoted above lays down that there should be a requirement of at least 1/3rd of the total members for the 1st meeting to elect the President and the Vice President. The interpretation sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondent nos. 8 to 11 cannot be construed to be a correct interpretation and cannot be said to be in sync with the scheme of the statute. As observed above, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the meeting held on 27.06.2025, 6 (six) members were present,” Justice Medhi added.The court thereafter held, “… presence of 6 members would definitely fulfil the quorum as required under Rule 46 (3)...”As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner had been elected President of the Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat in its first meeting held in June 2025, where six elected Ward Members were present. Subsequently, certain private respondents submitted a representation before the District Commissioner, Biswanath, alleging that the meeting was invalid on the ground that quorum had not been met, contending that seven members were required.Acting on this representation, the District Commissioner passed an order in September 2025 cancelling the first meeting and the petitioner's election, without issuing any notice to or hearing the petitioner. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the cancellation order had been passed behind his back and that Rule 46(3) had been wrongly interpreted.On the issue of denial of hearing, the Court noted, “… it was imperative for the adjudicating authority to give a proper opportunity to the aggrieved party. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order has been passed behind his back. Such action of the respondent authorities amounts to gross violation of the principles of natural justice…”The Court therefore opined, “the view taken by the District Commissioner, as reflected in the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 is unsustainable in law” and the same was accordingly set aside and quashed.Consequently, the Court directed, “the petitioner be allowed to function as the President of the concerned 14 No. Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat in accordance with law and for the tenure prescribed in the statute.”Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.Case Title: Burhan Ali v State of Assam & Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 23Case Number: WP(C)/5918/2025 Click Here To Read Judgement

Six Members In First Meeting Fulfills Quorum To Elect President Of Village Council Under Assam Panchayat Rules: Gauhati High Court

Bhavya Singh

Tags