Supreme Court Declares Election Void Due to Age Disqualification: Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) INSC 963 (7 November 2022)

Case Background

The case originated from the 2017 Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly elections for the 34, Suar constituency in Rampur district. The election process began with a notification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which set the schedule for the election. Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan (the appellant), and Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (the respondent) were among those who filed their nomination papers.

During the scrutiny of nominations on January 28, 2017, the respondent raised an objection, contending that the appellant was under 25 years of age and thus ineligible to contest under Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India. This objection was overruled by the Returning Officer, and the election proceeded. The appellant won the election, securing the highest number of votes.

Aggrieved, the respondent filed an election petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, reiterating his claim that the appellant was not qualified to contest the election due to being under the age of 25. He presented academic records and other documents indicating the appellant’s date of birth as January 1, 1993. The High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring the appellant’s election void.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, after considering the evidence, ruled that the appellant was indeed under 25 years of age on the date of filing his nomination, the date of scrutiny, and the date of the declaration of result. The court noted that the appellant’s academic records and other documents consistently showed his date of birth as January 1, 1993. The High Court, therefore, declared the appellant’s election to be void. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates the minimum age requirement for contesting elections for a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The Article states:
“A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he – (b) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age…”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of public records. It states:

“Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.—An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the performance of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.”

Further, Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, was also considered, which states:
“Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• ✓ There is a statutory presumption of validity of nomination papers.
• ✓ The appellant did not dispute the school records but disputed the contents, claiming his date of birth was wrongly recorded as January 1, 1993, instead of September 30, 1990.
• ✓ The burden of proof was on the election petitioner to prove the appellant was born on January 1, 1993, which they failed to do.
• ✓ The best evidence of the date of birth is the testimony of the appellant’s mother (DW.5) and the doctor who delivered him.
• ✓ The hospital records from Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, support the appellant’s claim of being born on September 30, 1990.
• ✓ The error in school records was due to a family friend who got him admitted to school in 1995.
• ✓ The birth certificate issued by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on January 21, 2015, is based on hospital records, indicating his correct date of birth.
• ✓ The school records are not direct evidence of the fact of birth.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• ✓ The respondent placed unimpeachable evidence on record, including the appellant’s class X certificate, passports, and original birth certificate issued by Nagar Palika, Rampur, all indicating a date of birth of January 1, 1993.
• ✓ The documents relied upon by the respondent are admissible under Sections 21 and 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• ✓ The evidence presented by the appellant was false and fabricated.
• ✓ The appellant’s documents consistently showed his date of birth as January 1, 1993, until 2015.
• ✓ The burden was on the appellant to prove his date of birth was September 30, 1990, and not January 1, 1993.
• ✓ The High Court correctly discarded the evidence presented by the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct and justified in allowing Election Petition No. 08 of 2017 filed by the election petitioner against the successful candidate and thereby setting aside the election of the successful candidate to the office of Member of Legislative Assembly, from 34-Suar Constituency, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, on the ground that there was improper acceptance of successful candidate’s nomination paper and there was a breach of Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India?
2. What order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Others, (1965) 3 SCR 861*: The Court examined the probative value of documents admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, (1988) Supp SCC 604*: The court discussed that school records are not direct evidence of the fact of birth.
• ✓ Rakesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar, (1999) 2 SCC 489*: The Court discussed the statutory presumption of validity of nomination papers.
• ✓ Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, (2009) 13 SCC 131*: The Court followed the ratio in Rakesh Kumar regarding the statutory presumption.
• ✓ Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673*: The Court discussed the principles of burden of proof and the determination of age in election petitions.
• ✓ Updesh Kumar and Others v. Prithvi Singh and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 524*: The Court discussed the probative value of documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 702*: The Court discussed the probative value of documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283*: The Court discussed the probative value of documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714*: The Court discussed the probative value of documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
• ✓ Mukarrab and others vs. State of U.P., (2017) 2 SCC 210*: The Court held that an ossification test cannot be solely relied upon as conclusive proof of age.
• ✓ Thiru John vs. Returning Officer, (1977) 3 SCC 540*: The Court discussed that an admission on the part of a party is binding on him.
• ✓ Robins vs. National Trust & Co. Ltd. 1927 AC 515*: The Court discussed the burden of proof regarding the date of birth.
• ✓ Rani Chandra Kunwar vs. Chaudhari Narpat Singh and Ors. (1906) SCC OnLine PC 26*: The Court discussed that once the execution of a document is admitted, the burden is on the other party to rebut the presumption.
• ✓ P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal (1972) 1 SCC 9*: The Court discussed that once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional mandate regarding age qualifications for elected office.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based more on the factual inconsistencies and reliability of documentary evidence than on complex legal interpretations.

The Court rejected the appellant’s claim that his date of birth was 30th September, 1990, due to inconsistencies and lack of credibility in his evidence. The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on the birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, and the hospital records of Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, due to the manipulation and interpolation in the said documents. The court also held that the ossification test was not a conclusive proof of the appellant’s age. The court accepted the respondent’s evidence which showed the appellant’s date of birth as 1st January, 1993, and held that the appellant was under 25 years of age at the time of the election.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The purpose of the Evidence Act, 1872 is to prove and disprove the existence of facts in issue and to find out the truth of the facts which are asserted by the parties as the decision of the case lies upon/depends upon the truthfulness of those facts.”

“Procedure is the handmade of justice and not its mistress i.e. procedure is not to control justice but procedure is the helping hand of justice and it helps to facilitate justice.”

“The age of a person in an election petition has to be determined not only on the basis of the materials placed on record but also upon taking into consideration the circumstances attending thereto.”

The Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that there was no manifest error in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Candidates must ensure that their age and other details in official documents are accurate.
• ✓ Election petitions based on age disqualification will be scrutinized thoroughly by the courts.
• ✓ Public documents and admissions made by a party can be used against them.
• ✓ Courts will prioritize direct and reliable evidence over circumstantial evidence.
• ✓ The burden of proof to establish the correct date of birth lies on the candidate.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that a certified copy of this decision be sent to the Election Commission forthwith.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was unanimous, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna adding supplementary reasoning to the main opinion of Justice Ajay Rastogi.

Supplementary Reasoning

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, while concurring with the main judgment, added supplementary reasoning emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. She highlighted that the minimum age requirement for contesting elections is a crucial constitutional safeguard and that any attempt to circumvent this provision must be dealt with firmly. Her reasoning further underscored the need for candidates to be truthful and transparent in their declarations and that any misrepresentation or falsification of documents would have serious consequences. She also emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of public records and that any manipulation or interpolation of such records would not be tolerated.

Justice Nagarathna also emphasized the importance of the “best evidence rule,” which states that the best evidence must be produced to prove a fact. In this case, the best evidence of the appellant’s date of birth was the documents issued before 2015, which consistently showed his date of birth as January 1, 1993. The appellant’s attempt to rely on documents created after the issue was raised was not considered credible.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan (2022) INSC 963 is a significant ruling that underscores the importance of the minimum age requirement for contesting elections. The Court’s thorough analysis of the evidence, rejection of fabricated documents, and emphasis on the integrity of the electoral process send a clear message that any attempt to circumvent constitutional provisions will not be tolerated. This judgment serves as a critical reminder to all candidates to ensure the accuracy of their records and to uphold the principles of truth and transparency in their declarations. The case also highlights the importance of public documents and the probative value they hold in legal proceedings. The judgment is a strong affirmation of the sanctity of the electoral process and the importance of upholding the constitutional framework.