Election age qualification: later birth records rejected, consistent contemporaneous documents prevailed, and the challenge succeeded.

An election dispute on age qualification under Article 173(b) turned on whether the candidate had attained the minimum age of twenty-five years and whether the asserted date of birth was proved by reliable evidence. The Court gave primacy to consistent contemporaneous records, admissions, and public documents showing the candidate's date of birth as 01.01.1993, while rejecting a later claim of 30.09.1990 for want of satisfactory proof. It also declined to rely on a belated birth certificate and supporting hospital records because they were irregular, inadequately authenticated, and inconsistent with the earlier documentary trail. The result was that the constitutional age requirement was not satisfied and the election challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's nomination was improperly accepted because he had not attained the minimum age of twenty-five years required to contest the Legislative Assembly election under Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the documentary and oral evidence established that the appellant's actual date of birth was 30.09.1990 and not 01.01.1993. (iii) Whether the birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 21.01.2015 and the supporting hospital records were reliable and legally valid evidence of age.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's nomination was improperly accepted because he had not attained the minimum age of twenty-five years required to contest the Legislative Assembly election under Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The nomination challenge turned on whether the appellant was below twenty-five years on the relevant election dates. The evidence was assessed against the constitutional qualification and the settled approach that a person disqualified by age cannot be permitted to contest or hold office, but the finding must rest on reliable proof.

Conclusion: The appellant was found to be underage on the relevant dates, and the nomination was properly rejected in the election petition proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the documentary and oral evidence established that the appellant's actual date of birth was 30.09.1990 and not 01.01.1993.

Analysis: The Court examined the competing records, including school certificates, passports, visa documents, the service-book entry in the Group Insurance Scheme form, birth certificates, and hospital registers. It held that the documents consistently showing 01.01.1993 carried probative value, while the later version asserting 30.09.1990 was not satisfactorily proved. The Court also considered the principles on burden of proof, admissions, special knowledge, and the evidentiary weight of public records, concluding that the appellant failed to dislodge the earlier and consistent documentary trail.

Conclusion: The evidence did not establish that the appellant's actual date of birth was 30.09.1990.

Issue (iii): Whether the birth certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on 21.01.2015 and the supporting hospital records were reliable and legally valid evidence of age.

Analysis: The Court found that the birth certificate was issued after a belated application without compliance with the procedure governing delayed registration, and that the relevant municipal and hospital records suffered from overwriting, irregularities, lack of authentication, and unexplained absence of the birth list on which the entry was said to rest. The ossification report was also held to be only corroborative and not conclusive, especially when weighed against the contrary and more consistent documentary material.

Conclusion: The later birth certificate and the supporting hospital records were not accepted as reliable proof of the appellant's age.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellant's election succeeded because the Court found that he had not satisfied the constitutional age requirement and that the High Court's decision setting aside the election called for no interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election dispute on age qualification, the Court must decide the issue on the totality of reliable evidence, give due weight to consistent contemporaneous public records and admissions, and reject later records that are unsupported, irregular, or tainted by manipulation.

---