Back
2023 Supreme(Pat) 1419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
Usha Kumari Daughter of Domi Rajak and Wife of Raja Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5858 of 2023
Decided on : 24-11-2023
Important Points
Subject
Election Law - Disqualification due to Age
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT: S.35, S.74
Headnote
(B) Age Determination - Academic records must be prioritized unless novel evidence undermines their integrity - Assessment must uphold potential discrepancies in impact. (Paras 18, 24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner successfully contested for Mukhiya despite having her date of birth recorded as 05.12.2003, leading to disqualification claims post-election. The conflicting age records were scrutinized.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner failed to provide sufficient contrary proof to disturb reliance on official academic documents showing age under 21.
Issues: Determination of valid age for election eligibility and weight given to conflicting documents regarding age.
Ratio Decidendi: Court established priority of officially maintained academic records over birth certificates and unverified documents, emphasizing legal principles around eligibility and documentary evidence validity.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, Advocate, Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the SEC :Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-7, Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner declared mukhiya but challenged for age disqualification. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against reliance on academic records for age determination. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's emphasis on primacy of matriculation records over other age evidences. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. no grounds for interference with the order of the state election commission. (Para 26) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
This Court has heard Mr. S B K Mangalam, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kumar Alok, learned SC – 7 for the State. The State Election Commission is represented by Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, learned advocate. Mr. S D Sanjay, learned senior advocate duly assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal, learned advocate for the private respondent no. 11.
2. Having notified Panchayat Election in Gram Panchayat Raj, Dhabauli East under Patarghat Block of Saharsa District, the petitioner filed her nomination to contest the said election for the post of Mukhiya.
3. After scrutiny of the nomination paper, the petitioner along with others were allotted election symbol by the Returning Officer. There was no objection against the nomination/candidature of the petitioner from any quarter. The petitioner was finally declared successful for the post of Mukhiya.
4. The respondent no. 11, soon after the declaration of result of election filed a complaint before the State Election Commission with a prayer to declare the petitioner disqualified to hold the post of Mukhiya of said Gram Panchayat, in terms of Section 136(1)(b) of the BIHAR PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT , 2006 on the ground that on the date of her nomination as well as on election, the petitioner had not completed the age of 21 years, in view of her date of birth mentioned as 05.12.2003 in her matriculation certificate, thus, on the date of her election, she was aged about only 18 years.
5. On receipt of the aforenoted complaint, the State Election Commission registered a case bearing Case No. 68 of 2022 and a report was called for from the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Saharasa.
6. In pursuant to the direction of the State Election Commissioner, the District Magistrate cum District Election Officer (Panchayat), Saharsa submitted his report vide Letter No. 1675 dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-3), mentioning therein, that date of birth of the petitioner recorded in academic certificate is 05.12.2003 and based upon such date of birth, she was only 17 years 9 months and 15 days old on the date of scrutiny of her nomination paper, which is less than 21 years. The aforenoted report of the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Saharsa has also accompanied the report of the District Education Officer, Madhepur (Annexure ‘-4) and the report of the Block Education Officer, Murliganj (Annexure P-4/1) enclosing the school leaving certificate of the petitioner and the Admission Register of Bhuneshwari (Murho) High School, Murliganj disclosing, the petitioner’s date of birth as 05.12.2003.
7. Notice was issued to the petitioner and she was directed to file her written statement to the complaint petition filed by the respondent. In response thereto, the petitioner appeared before the State Election Commission and filed her detailed written statement. The matter was heard on 03.03.2023 and after hearing the parties, the judgment was reserved and finally the respondent State Election Commissioner has passed the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1003 dated 27.03.2023, declaring the petitioner disqualified to hold the post on the ground that in view of the petitioner’s date of birth, mentioned in the matriculation certificate, she had not attained the required age of 21 years on the date of scrutiny of her nomination paper. The impugned order has been marked as Annexure P-6 to the writ petition.
8. Mr. Mangalam, while challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 8 submitte
