SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1134

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Amber Shehbaz, Adv. Mr. Gorakh Nath Yadav, Adv. Mohd. Aslam Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Singh Boparai, Adv. Mr. Harsh Andani, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Singh, AOR Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR

Headnote:(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 116A - Constitution of India - Article 173(b) - Election petition - Candidate's age - Election of successful candidate declared void by High Court as he was underage at the time of filing nomination as per documented evidence - Evidence of birth certificate and school records considered - Appellant's claim of being above age challenged and deemed not credible based upon inconsistencies in documentation. (Paras 1, 4, 51-52).

(B) Burden of proof - Burden lies on the party asserting a fact - Appellant failed to prove he was over 25 years, as evidence supported the age limit disqualification. (Paras 20.1-20.2).

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested from 34, Suar Assembly Constituency, declaration of election results on 11th March 2017 and the objection raised on age during nomination scrutiny on 28th January 2017. The respondent argued appellant was born on 01.01.1993 and underage to contest.

Findings of Court:
High Court found that the evidence established the appellant's age was less than 25 years at relevant times and declared his election void.

Issues: Whether the appellant met the age requirement qualifying to contest the election; whether the documentation provided credible evidence for date of birth.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld sufficient evidence indicating the appellant's incorrect claim regarding his birth date, affirming that a candidate’s age must align with constitutional requirements for election eligibility, thus validating the lower court's decision.

Result: Appeal dismissed, election declared void.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top