Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the disqualification of a Sarpanch for violating Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner was found to have had two children after the cutoff date of November 27, 1995, disqualifying him from contesting elections. The High Court upheld the election tribunal’s decision, reiterating the evidentiary value of Class 10 mark sheets under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act as public documents. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, citing inconsistencies in the birth records provided and emphasizing the finality of the dates recorded in matriculation certificates.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, a Sarpanch whose election was challenged by his opponent, claimed that the birth dates of his children were inaccurately recorded in his nomination form. He argued that his son’s birth date was January 1, 1995, and his daughter’s April 15, 1995, as per school records. However, the Class 10 mark sheets of the children indicated birth dates of July 5, 1996, and July 5, 1998, respectively—suggesting they were born after the cutoff date. The petitioner maintained that these discrepancies were inadvertent errors and urged the court to consider school admission forms as additional evidence of his children’s correct birth dates.

He further submitted that the admission forms were reliable as they were registered by public and private institutions. The petitioner criticized the tribunal for disregarding this evidence and argued that relying solely on the matriculation certificates as proof of birth dates was unwarranted. To bolster his defense, he cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., arguing that alternative evidence could be admissible when birth records conflict.

Arguments by the Respondent:

The respondent, the petitioner’s opponent, contended that the Class 10 certificates, issued by the Board of Secondary Education, were credible public documents under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The respondent asserted that these records were not challenged by the petitioner or his children at any point, making them legally binding and final.

The respondent emphasized inconsistencies in the petitioner’s defense, pointing out that the petitioner had presented three different dates of birth for his son across various documents. Moreover, the school admission forms submitted as evidence were introduced by the children’s uncle, who was not examined to authenticate them. The respondent argued that the lack of correction requests for the dates in the matriculation certificates further undermined the petitioner’s case.

The respondent also highlighted that the petitioner’s son had secured employment based on the Class 10 certificate, further validating its authenticity. Citing the Rajasthan High Court’s precedent in Smt. Ummed Kanwar v. Prabhu Singh, the respondent argued that in election matters, the standard of proof required was a “preponderance of probability” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt.”

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, finding no infirmity in the election tribunal’s decision. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated that the Class 10 certificates were public documents under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and therefore credible and authentic. The court underscored that these records had attained finality as they were never challenged or corrected by the petitioner or his children.

The court noted that the petitioner himself was inconsistent about the dates of birth, providing three conflicting versions during the proceedings. It observed that while school admission forms were submitted, they lacked corroboration as the uncle who submitted them was not examined. Additionally, the court emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide a credible explanation for why no steps were taken to rectify discrepancies in the matriculation records.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. and Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., the High Court held that matriculation certificates take precedence as reliable evidence of birth dates. The court also highlighted that the tribunal was correct in relying on these records, given the absence of any compelling contradictory evidence.

Addressing the broader implications, the High Court noted that election tribunals are bound to consider the totality of evidence presented and assess it based on the preponderance of probabilities. The court criticized the petitioner’s failure to substantiate his claims and found no reason to deviate from the tribunal’s findings.

Finally, the High Court directed the Election Officer to declare the results of the bye-elections for the Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas Sarpanch post and proceed per law.