Back
Age Discrepancy in BJP Candidate's Affidavit: Reserves Verdict on Congress Plea
The on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by the challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) acceptance of Nandigram bypoll candidate Hasirani Rath's nomination papers, alleging a glaring age discrepancy in her election affidavit. Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the matter, heard detailed arguments from all parties before reserving judgment, with the bypoll scheduled for and counting on .
The Congress contends that Rath's affidavit declares her age as over 60 years, yet simultaneously records that she passed the Madhyamik (Class 10) examination in —a combination that appears mathematically inconsistent. The party argues that this "" should have been detected by the Returning Officer during statutory scrutiny, and that the ECI failed in its constitutional duty to ensure the integrity of the nomination process.
Background: The Disputed Affidavit
The case centers on the nomination papers filed by Hasirani Rath for the Nandigram Assembly by-election, a high-profile contest in West Bengal. In her sworn affidavit submitted under the , Rath declared her age as over 60 years. Separately, the same affidavit lists her educational qualification as having passed the Madhyamik examination in . Assuming a typical age of 14–16 years for Class 10 completion, the date would place her birth year around 1949–1951, making her approximately 72–74 years old in —a discrepancy of over a decade from the "over 60" declaration.
The Congress seized on this inconsistency, arguing that either the age or the educational record is incorrect, and that the Returning Officer, as a statutory authority, was obligated to verify such glaring contradictions before accepting the nomination. The party approached the High Court after the statutory scrutiny period had expired, acknowledging the delay but insisting that the ECI's conduct warranted judicial intervention.
Key Developments in Court
, appearing for the Congress, emphasized that the party was not seeking to stall the election or cancel Rath's candidature at this stage.
"I have not asked for cancellation. I am not putting a spanner in the works,"
Ghosal submitted, clarifying that the petition focused on the ECI's discharge of its statutory duties rather than Rath's eligibility to contest.
Ghosal argued that the discrepancy was an "
" on the face of the record, one that any reasonable Returning Officer would have noticed during scrutiny.
"Either her age or her birth date has to be seen. One of it is correct,"
he contended, submitting that the Returning Officer was required to decide objections and that the Congress had a right to question the scrutiny process even after the deadline.
The court queried whether calling for election records at this stage could impact the electoral process, but Ghosal maintained that the issue was about the ECI's constitutional role, not about disrupting the election.
"I am not on her candidature. I am on the conduct of the Election Commission,"
he asserted, adding that the party had come to court because the ECI had allegedly failed to act.
ECI and Respondent's Defense
Opposing the plea, counsel for the respondent (likely the candidate or the BJP) argued that any objection to the nomination papers had to be raised at the appropriate stage—during scrutiny—and that the Congress, as a political party, could not now challenge the scrutiny process after the fact. The respondent further contended that an incorrect declaration regarding age, by itself, cannot result in cancellation of a nomination unless it affects the candidate's qualification to contest.
"If I make a misdeclaration of my age, it is not a substantial issue,"
the counsel argued, noting that there is no minimum age qualification for Assembly elections beyond the constitutional requirement of 25 years, which Rath clearly meets.
, representing the Election Commission, supported this view, submitting that the Congress had raised the issue only after the period for objections had expired. Naidu argued that while the Returning Officer has a duty to scrutinize nomination papers, an allegedly
of a nomination would not by itself justify judicial intervention unless it had materially affected the election. He also pointed out that no objection was raised by the Congress during the scrutiny process, and that Rath had described herself as being over 60 years of age.
"It is not their case that they pointed it out and we ignored,"
Naidu submitted, emphasizing the statutory scheme designed to avoid uncertainty in the electoral process.
Legal Analysis: and
The central legal question before Justice Krishna Rao is whether the ECI and the Returning Officer failed in their under , which requires scrutiny of nomination papers and the rejection of those that do not comply with legal requirements. The Congress argues that the age discrepancy constitutes a non-compliance, making the nomination defective on its face.
However, the ECI and the respondent contend that the alleged discrepancy does not affect Rath's eligibility to contest, as the only age-related qualification is that the candidate must be at least 25 years old. A misdeclaration of age, even if proven, is not a ground for rejection under the Act unless it amounts to a or . Furthermore, the has consistently held that of a nomination does not unless it materially affects the outcome—a high threshold that the Congress may struggle to meet, especially given that no objection was raised during scrutiny.
The court's observation that the statute requires the Returning Officer to decide objections suggests that the bench is not entirely dismissing the Congress's argument. Justice Rao questioned the contention that a third party could not raise an issue concerning the scrutiny process, hinting that the Returning Officer's role is not merely ministerial but involves a .
Impact on Electoral Practice
This case underscores the tension between the need for finality in electoral processes and the imperative of ensuring that statutory authorities perform their duties diligently. If the court finds that the ECI failed in its scrutiny, it could set a precedent for challenging nomination acceptance even after the statutory period, particularly in cases of apparent errors. However, a ruling in favor of the ECI would reinforce the principle that objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and that election petitions are the appropriate forum for such disputes.
The timing of the order—just days before the Nandigram bypoll—adds urgency to the matter. While the Congress has clarified it is not seeking to stop the election, the court's verdict could influence future scrutiny practices by Returning Officers across India. Legal professionals will be watching closely for the court's reasoning on the scope of the Returning Officer's duty and the standard for "."
Conclusion
With the reserving its order, the legal community awaits a decision that could clarify the boundaries of statutory scrutiny in election law. The case highlights the delicate balance between electoral certainty and accountability, and the role of courts in ensuring that constitutional bodies like the ECI act with due diligence. As the Nandigram bypoll proceeds, the outcome of this plea may resonate beyond West Bengal, shaping how nomination discrepancies are handled in future elections.
