The Gauhati High Court granted bail to a man accused of posting pro-Pakistan content and threatening to kill Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma if anything happened to Pakistan.

The post included phrases like “Pakistan Zindabad” and “open challenge” to harm the CM. Justice Robin Phukan noted that the man had already spent 57 days in custody, and the case diary was not produced despite multiple requests.

The Court ruled that further custody wasn't necessary for the investigation. Bail was granted with conditions, including full co-operation and a ban on influencing witnesses or obstructing the probe.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar took oath on Monday as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.

The ceremony was held at Raj Bhavan, where Assam Governor Lakshman Prasad Acharya administered the oath. Born on October 1, 1966, Justice Kumar completed his education at St. Michael's High School, Patna, St. Stephen's College, and Campus Law Centre, Delhi University.

He began practising in 1991 at the Patna High Court, appearing in several key criminal cases. Elevated as a judge in 2014, he served in Delhi and Patna High Courts before his appointment as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court.

A student body, All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), filed a PIL in the Gauhati High Court challenging Assam’s so-called “push‑back” policy targeting alleged illegal immigrants.

The petitioners argue that the state arbitrarily detains individuals and expels them across the Bangladesh border without due process, violating Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution and Supreme Court directives. 

Over 50 individuals are believed to have been forcibly removed without legal orders, according to the petition. 

The Court directed ABMSU to provide a list of affected persons by July 14, and scheduled the next hearing for July 22, 2025. 

The Gauhati High Court ordered that a taxpayer, by clearing all dues and filing pending returns, can restore the cancelled GST registration.

The court mentioned Rule 22(4) of the GST rules, which allows revocation of GST registration cancellation, if pending returns are filed and tax, interest and late fees paid.

In this case, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing returns for 6 months, but she later updated all the returns and paid dues, explaining her delay was due to unfamiliarity with online systems.

The Court directed her to approach the tax department within two months for restoration and noted that cancellation has serious consequences for business continuity.

The Gauhati High Court directed the Assam Government to submit a status report regarding the modified version of 'Guwahati Outdoor Advertisement Policy Guidelines, 2017'.

The Court was hearing a PIL alleging the State’s failure to notify the final version of the guidelines despite earlier directions, following the petitioner’s initial challenge to the unchecked placement of hoardings and billboards in Guwahati without regulations. 

The Court noted no objections were received on the draft, yet the State failed to notify of the finalised rules within the six-week deadline fixed in 2018

The Court noted the delay and ordered a status report on the modified guidelines, with the matter now listed after six weeks.

The Gauhati High Court has directed that all child trafficking trials pending in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh be completed within six months. 

The Court issued this directive in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order in Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., which mandates expeditious disposal of child trafficking cases.

The Court has emphasised the adoption of suggestions from the Bharatiya Institute of Research and Development (BIRD) report, urging that all missing children cases be treated as trafficking unless proven otherwise.

The Court instructed subordinate courts to conduct trials on a day-to-day basis if necessary. The Supreme Court will review compliance in October 2025.

The Gauhati High Court held that the right to appoint an arbitrator is not automatically forfeited merely because 30 days have lapsed since the demand was made by the other party.

The Court held that Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not prescribe a specific time limit for the appointment of an arbitrator and that the appointment can be valid even beyond 30 days, provided the other party has not yet approached the court.

The Court also reiterated the need to interpret arbitration law in a manner that furthers the objective of party autonomy.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that the term "and" in Section 482(4) of the BNSS, 2023, should be interpreted as "or" to align with legislative intent.

This means that a person accused under either Section 65 (rape of a girl under 16) or Section 70(2) (gang rape of a girl under 18) of the BNS, 2023, is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita emphasized that requiring both charges for the bail restriction would be illogical, as simultaneous accusations under both sections are improbable.

The Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction of a man under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to cruelty by a husband or his relatives.  

The court observed that the complainant was only 14 years old at the time of the alleged marriage, making it void under Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which requires brides to be at least 18 and grooms 21.

The Court clarified that mere cohabitation without a legally valid marriage does not attract Section 498A.  

Consequently, the Court quashed the judgments of both the Trial and Appellate Courts, which had previously convicted and sentenced the accused.

The Gauhati High Court has granted judicial separation to a woman who was physically assaulted by her husband, who doubted their child's paternity due to the child's fair complexion. 

The Court observed that the husband’s baseless suspicions that the couple had a dark-skinned complexion but their child was fair-skinned and repeated physical abuse amounted to cruelty, making it impossible for the wife to continue cohabiting with him.

Emphasizing the emotional trauma and social stigma faced by the wife, the Court allowed her plea for separation and maintenance, reaffirming that unfounded accusations and violence within marriage are valid grounds for judicial relief.

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a PIL seeking laws mandating compulsory castration for gang rape, rape-murder, and minor rape cases in Assam. 

The petitioner also requested pepper spray distribution, fast-track trials with the death penalty like Andhra’s Disha Act, and adoption of West Bengal’s Aparajita Bill. 

The Court held that the reliefs sought could not be granted on the facts presented and emphasised that policies must reflect each state's realities.

The court acknowledged the Assam Police's initiatives like Women Help Desks, SMRC collaboration with UNICEF, cyber-awareness campaigns, and special POCSO monitoring. The Court found no merit in forcing Assam to adopt schemes of other states.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has resigned from the Gauhati High Court Bar Association over its opposition to shifting the High Court from Guwahati city to Rangmahal in North Guwahati.

In his letter, Sarma said he stepped down to avoid a conflict of interest, as the move was based on a Full Court decision to address issues like lack of space and poor infrastructure.

The Bar Association is against the relocation, citing accessibility problems for lawyers and members of the public.

Sarma clarified that Rangmahal is no longer in his constituency and said he would not interfere in the matter further. 

The Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) president requested the recusal of Justice Unnikrishnan Nair from a contempt case after he allegedly “liked” an online post related to the criminal case against certain lawyers. 

The contempt petition, filed by Advocate General Saikia, accused three advocates of making derogatory remarks against Justice Suman Shyam during protests over shifting the High Court building from its existing site. 

The court reserved its verdict but agreed to consider the recusal request.

The court also criticized the GHCBA for failing to act against the members involved in the protest.

The Gauhati High Court held that mere quarrels between a husband and wife or a husband’s demand for divorce do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. 

The court quashed the criminal proceedings against a husband who was accused by his wife under Section 498A IPC & Section 67 of the IT Act.

The court stated that no evidence of a demand for dowry or direct involvement of the accused was found. 

The court ruled that the provision could not be arbitrarily applied to marital discord, the charges against the petitioner were unsustainable, and proceeded to quash the proceedings.