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 proof.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

1. Petitioner, before this Court, was elected as Chairman in Nagar Panchayat-Maniyar, Pargana-Khareed, District-Ballia, for which the election for Nagar Panchayat was notified by State Election Commission on 17.04.2023. Nomination by candidates was to be made between 24.04.2023 to 27.04.2023. Votes were casted on 11.05.2023, and counting was held on 13.05.2023. Petitioner was declared as a returned candidate on 13.05.2023 and a certificate was issued.

2. On 16.05.2023, election petitioner/respondent no. 5 moved an application/complaint before District Magistrate/Election Officer against returned candidate regarding material suppression of fact as to her age mentioned in the educational certificate submitted along with nomination paper and disclosure of the age. An inquiry was set up by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 18.05.2023 and directed the District Basic Education Officer to inquire into the correct age of returned candidate. On the same day, respondent no. 5 filed an election petition before District Magistrate, Ballia. On 23.05.2023, District Basic Education Officer, Ballia submitted his report wherein it was mentioned that three dates of birth of returned candidate/petitioner were mentioned in different class of Registers, mentioning date of birth as 30.07.1992 in Class Ist Register, second date of birth mentioned as 30.07.1997 and third of the year 1994. A First Information Report was lodged on 25.05.2023 against petitioner, however, she took oath as Chairman of Nagar Panchayat-Maniyar on 20.05.2023. By judgment impugned dated 23.10.2024, her election has been declared null and void and election petitioner has been declared as a winning candidate.

3. Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds. It has been contended that whether a Transfer Certificate of School can be used as a sole basis of date of birth and its evidential value in election matter. Secondly, whether the eligibility for the post of Chairman is determined by School Certificate/School Register/Transfer Certificate. Thirdly, whether burden of proof/onus can be shifted over to petitioner.

4. Then, it is contended that whether concealment of age has materially affected the result of election. Fifthly, whether Election Tribunal can declare runner up candidate as a winner candidate. It was then contended that whether concealment of age amounts to corrupt practice of Election Tribunal in declaring any document as forged without giving opportunity of examination-in-chief or cross examination of concerned person. Seventhly, it was further contended that whether document which is attached with an affidavit can be used for purpose of educational qualification or date of birth. Lastly, it was contended that whether Election Tribunal/Presiding Officer can rely upon an ex-parte inquiry report without giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for returned candidate had submitted that no primary evidence was adduced to prove date of birth, and Transfer Certificate and School Register are not primary evidence. No original documents were ever produced and only photocopies were filed. According to him, in case, the documents were proved, the contents were to be proved by witnesses. Only execution of documents can be proved by witnesses. According to him, the evidence adduced only proves that candidate did not attend