The Gauhati High Court directed the respondents — the Centre, the Assam government, the Election Commission of India and the state election officer — to submit their replies by February 24, the date of hearing. . File
Guwahati
The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday (Jan 28, 2026) listed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking judicial intervention into the alleged widespread misuse of objections during the special revision of electoral rolls in Assam, amid controversy over Chief Minister Himant Biswa Sarma’s remarks.
The PIL, filed by advocate FZ Mazumder under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges what the petitioner describes as false, fraudulent and false filing of Form 7 objections during the revision before the 2026 Assam Assembly elections.
The petition alleges impersonation, misuse of identity, and the inability of electoral authorities and state administration to conduct transparent investigations or initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible.
Mr. Mazumder sought the establishment of a high-level independent judicial inquiry, preferably led by a judge of judicial age or retired, to check the alleged misuse of the statutory objection mechanism and ensure that no voter is removed from the rolls based on dubious or spurious complaints.
He said the inaction of election authorities allowed arbitrary deletion proceedings, prompting legal voters to defend their right to vote based on fraudulent complaints.
The PIL cited extensive media reports in late January that detailed cases of voters wrongly labeled as “dead” or “shifted” and individuals labeled as complainants who refused to file objections altogether. The petitioner argued that the alleged abuses threaten the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections and disproportionately affect marginalized and less literate voters.
The court directed the respondents – the Centre, the Assam government, the Election Commission of India and the state election officer – to file their replies by February 24, the date of hearing.
Potentially inflammatory
The court’s extract came on a day when the Assam unit of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) issued a statement protesting the chief minister’s remarks about alleged “vote theft” during the special revision process.
In a letter to the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, TMC state senior vice-president Dulu Ahmed said the chief minister publicly admitted irregularities in the voter revision exercise but did not order action against those allegedly involved.
The letter states that although the opposition parties submitted information related to the alleged manipulation to the Election Commission, no visible action was taken. She further objected to the Chief Minister’s alleged use of the term “Miya”, a pejorative term for Bengali-speaking Muslims, and calls for social and economic exclusion of the community.
Mr Ahmed said the chief minister’s public statements allegedly contained “indications of removing the names of genuine Muslim voters from the electoral rolls, with intent and without any basis”. He also said that such “repeated communal references” have the “potential to inflame religious sentiments and disturb the order between Hindus and Muslims” in Assam.
He asked the court to direct the Assam government and the Election Commission to ensure that the ongoing special revision of electoral rolls is conducted strictly in accordance with the law, without religious or communal bias, to seek directions to prevent public functionaries from making statements that could incite communal discord.
According to the draft electoral roll released on 27 December 2025, Assam has 2.51 million voters after 4.78 million were marked dead and 5.23 million voters were found shifted while 53,619 more entries were deleted. Polling agencies claimed 100% verification covering more than 61,000 households
On 25 January, six opposition parties – Congress, Raijor Dal, Assam Jatiya Parishad, CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML) – submitted a memorandum to the Chief Electoral Officer of the state, alleging widespread violations of law, political interference and targeted harassment of genuine voters during the exercise of the SR, which they said was “unconstitutional, unconstitutional”.
Published – 28 Jan 2026 23:38 IST
