https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465294 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. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 11:07:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465294 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465294