Rajasthan High Court: In an election petition filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) against the petitioner who is elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, District Alwar, alleging disqualification based on the “two-child norm” under Section 19(l) of the Act, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., upheld the Election Tribunal’s decision and affirmed the petitioner’s disqualification for the post of Sarpanch due to violation of Section 19(l) of the Act.
In the instant matter, the petitioner contested and won the election for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, securing 926 votes against 704 votes received by Respondent 1. Respondent 1 filed an election petition challenging the petitioner’s eligibility, claiming that the petitioner had two additional children born after the cut-off date.
The Election Tribunal ruled in favor of Respondent 1, relying on the matriculation certificates of the petitioner’s children issued by the Board of Secondary Education, which recorded their dates of birth as 05-07-1996 and 15-07-1998. The Tribunal declared the petitioner disqualified and directed the District Collector to initiate a fresh election process.
The petitioner challenged the Election Tribunal’s decision and argued that the dates of birth recorded in the matriculation certificates were inaccurate and submitted alternative documentary evidence, including school admission forms and testimonies. The petitioner submitted school admission records and certificates indicating that the children’s dates of birth before the cut-off date. It was argued that matriculation certificates should not be conclusive proof when alternative evidence is available. The petitioner cited precedents to establish the admissibility and reliability of school admission records over matriculation certificates in certain circumstances.
However, respondent 1 contended that the matriculation certificates issued by the Board of Secondary Education were conclusive evidence of the children’s dates of birth. Respondent 1 questioned the authenticity of the petitioner’s submitted documents, as they were filed by the children’s uncle, who was not examined. It was also highlighted that the petitioner and his children made no effort to correct the discrepancies in the matriculation certificates
The main issues in the instant matter are —
-
Whether the petitioner was disqualified under Section 19(l) of the Act for having more than two children after the cut-off date?
-
Whether the evidence presented by the petitioner outweighed the matriculation certificates relied upon by the Election Tribunal?
The Court cited Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750, where it was held that matriculation certificates have precedence in determining date of birth and Parg Bhati v. State of U.P., (2016) 12 SCC 744, where it was held that matriculation certificates are conclusive in absence of contradictory evidence. The Court referred to Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602, where the Supreme Court held that “the matriculation certificate is a public document and the same is credible and authentic, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.” The Court held that the matriculation certificates, being public records, carried greater evidentiary weight.
The Court stated that the petitioner failed to convincingly prove the inaccuracy of the dates of birth recorded in the matriculation certificates. The Court further noted that the petitioner and his children took no steps to rectify the alleged errors in the certificates, further undermining their credibility.
The Court upheld the Election Tribunal’s decision and affirmed the petitioner’s disqualification. The Court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the State to proceed with declaring the results of the bye-elections.
[Jagdish Prasad v. Arvind Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3368, Decided on 22-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Bagri, Mr. Falak Mathur, Mr. Yug Singh and Mr. Darsh Shree Verma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Mr. Jitendra Choudhary and Mr. Neeraj Batra, G.C., Counsel for the Respondents
