SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan – Appellant
Versus
Nawab Kazim Ali Khan – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2020
Decided On : 07-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. election dispute regarding age qualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention of age qualification based on documented evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. allegations of wrongful age record manipulation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments on evidential standards in age disputes. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. analysis on burden of proof under the evidence act. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. court's findings on documentary evidence discrepancies. (Para 22 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final judgment dismissing the appeal. (Para 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. Instant appeal has been filed under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 assailing the judgment and order dated 16th December, 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, holding the election of the returned candidate (appellant) from 34, Suar Assembly Constituency of District Rampur, as void and consequently came to be set aside.
Factual background of the case
2. The notification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1951”) was notified for holding election of U.P. State Legislative Assembly from 34, Suar, District Rampur constituency. Public notice was issued by the Returning Officer fixing the election programme for holding election for the aforestated constituency. According to the schedule of programme, the appellant and the first respondent along with others filed their nomination papers. The scrutiny of the nomination took place on 28th January, 2017.
3. After scrutiny and withdrawal of nomination papers, the appellant and six others including the election petitioner were the candidates who remained in the field for election. It may be noted that before the Returning Officer, the respondent (election petitioner) filed an objection against the appellant alleging that he is less than 25 years of age and, therefore, is not qualified to contest the election in view of Article 173(b) of the Constitution. The objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and accordingly the election took place as per the schedule, in which the appellant and the respondent (election petitioner) contested along with others. The result of the election was declared on 11th March, 2017 in which the appellant secured highest votes and was declared elected.
4. The respondent filed the election petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the solitary ground that the appellant was not qualified to contest the election for member of Legislative Assembly in view of Article 173(b) of the Constitution as he was less than 25 years of age when he filed his nomination papers and also on the day on which he contested the election from 34, Suar Assembly Constituency of District Rampur.
5. In the election petition, the respondent (election petitioner), inter-alia, contended that objection as regards the age of the appellant was raised by him in the first instance before the Returning Officer, but the same was rejected without appreciating the bare documentary evidence on record and despite the date of birth of the appellant being 1st January, 1993, which was recorded throughout in his academic records, including his Secondary School Examination Certificate in 2007 from the Central Board of Secondary Education and Intermediate Examination in 2009 from St. Paul’s School, Rampur affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, the Returning Officer failed to consider the same and arbitrarily overruled the objection raised by him.
6. In the election petition, the following objections were raised and for better appreciation the same are reproduced as under:
(i) That the appellant was born on 01.01.1993 and, therefore, as on the date of the nomination of scrutiny, the appellant (Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan) was below 25 years of age.
(ii) That the appellant (Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan) appeared in Secondary School (Class-X) Examination in
Failure to disclose accurate age disqualifies election candidates under Section 43-AA(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, establishing the importance of truthful declarations and burden of pr....
Matriculation certificates are authoritative for age determination in election matters, unless contradicted by unimpeachable evidence.
The court upheld the disqualification of a Sarpanch candidate for having children after the statutory cut-off date, emphasizing the primacy of official records over private documents in determining e....
The court ruled that the Election Petition must be verified as per the Election Rules, and that birth certificates are admissible evidence, while Ration and Jan Aadhaar cards are not conclusive proof....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.