2003 (10) TMI 634 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the objection as regard the age of the respondent was made in writing before the returning officer but the same was rejected without giving an opportunity of hearing to him, purported to be on the ground that such objection had been filed in relation to one Rakesh Kumar alias Samrat Choudhary while the nomination paper had been filed by Rakesh Ku.?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the election petition.
2. Legality of the respondent's nomination acceptance.
3. Statutory defects in the election petition.
4. Relief entitlement of the election petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Election Petition
The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, affirming the maintainability of the election petition. This decision was based on the evaluation of the statutory requirements and the procedural correctness of the petition.

Issue 2: Legality of the Respondent's Nomination Acceptance
The primary contention was that the respondent was underage at the time of filing his nomination, thus violating Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India. The High Court divided the evidence into seven categories, including the Governor's order, age records, bail petition, horoscope, school admission register, transfer certificate, electoral roll, and identity card.

1. Governor's Order and Chief Electoral Officer's Report: The High Court found these documents non-binding and inadmissible in judicial proceedings due to their administrative nature and lack of cross-examination.

2. Age Records of Rohit Kumar: The High Court dismissed the relevance of these records due to the respondent's denial of being related to Rohit Kumar.

3. Secondary School Examination Records: The High Court dismissed these records as the respondent denied being known as Samrat Choudhary.

4. Bail Petition: The High Court noted that the age mentioned in the bail petition was not based on instructions from the respondent or his family, thus not conclusive.

5. Horoscope: Despite being marked without objection, the horoscope was considered only as supporting evidence due to lack of proof by the maker.

6. School Admission Register and Transfer Certificate: The High Court found inconsistencies and alterations in the school records, questioning their reliability.

7. Electoral Roll and Identity Card: The High Court noted that these documents showed the respondent was eligible to vote in 1995 but did not conclusively prove his age.

Issue 3: Statutory Defects in the Election Petition
The High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding no statutory defects in the election petition as per the Representation of People Act.

Issue 4: Relief Entitlement
The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and concluded that the respondent was not above 25 years of age on the date of filing the nomination. The findings of the High Court were reversed, and the Supreme Court declared the respondent's election as void.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, declaring the respondent's election from 181 Parbatta Assembly Constituency void due to non-compliance with Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India. The decision was communicated to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. No costs were ordered.