Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal against a High Court judgment that declared the election of the appellant, Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan, void due to his ineligibility based on age. The election was for the 34, Suar Assembly Constituency in District Rampur, with the election held on 11th March 2017. The respondent, Nawab Kazim Ali Khan, filed an election petition claiming that the appellant was underage, citing that he was born on 1st January 1993, making him ineligible under Article 173(b) of the Constitution. The appellant contested this, asserting that his actual date of birth was 30th September 1990, supported by various documents including hospital records and a birth certificate issued in 2015. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, found that the appellant was indeed underage at the time of the election, leading to the decision to set aside the election results. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and the burden of proof in election petitions. The court noted that the appellant's claims regarding his age were not substantiated sufficiently against the public documents presented by the respondent, which consistently indicated a birth date of 1st January 1993. The court concluded that the election was void due to the appellant's disqualification based on age, affirming the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Qualification to Contest - Age Requirement - Article 173(b) of the Constitution - The appellant was found to be less than 25 years of age at the time of filing nomination papers and election, thus disqualified from contesting. The High Court declared the election void based on evidence presented regarding the appellant's age (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was qualified to contest the election under Article 173(b) of the Constitution due to age requirements.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring the election of the appellant void due to his ineligibility based on age, affirming that he was less than 25 years old at the time of filing nomination papers.
Law Points
- Election law
- age qualification
- burden of proof
- documentary evidence
- presumption of validity
