MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN v. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN

p. 438 Copy page pinpoint

A ii) That the birth certificates produced by the successful candidate before the Returning Officer were duplicate certificates issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.04.2015 and 21.01.2015, respectively, and not on 30.09.1990, being the date on which the successful candidate was stated to have been born. Therefore, such documents did not reflect the correct date of birth of the successful candidate. iii) That the Returning Officer rejected the objection filed by the election petitioner without verifying the date of birth of the successful candidate in the original birth certificates issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. The birth certificates issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow were fabricated documents and the successful candidate’s actual birth certificate was issued by the D Registrar (Birth and Death), Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, Uttar Pradesh and as per the said document, his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and not 30.09.1990 as contended by the successful candidate. On the above pleadings, the election petitioner sought setting aside E the election of the successful candidate.

6. In response to the Election Petition, the successful candidate in the election, filed his written statement before the High Court, inter alia, with the following averments: i) That he was born on 30.09.1990 at Queen Mary’s Hospital, F Lucknow, and not on 01.01.1993 as alleged by the election petitioner. Therefore, he was above the age of twenty-five years as on the last date of filing the nomination, i.e., on 25.01.2017, on the date of scrutiny of his nomination, i.e., 28.01.2017 and on the date on which he was declared as the elected candidate, i.e., on 11.03.2017. Hence, he was duly qualified to contest the election and hold the office of a Member of Legislative Assembly, under Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India and provisions of the R.P. Act. ii) That the Returning Officer rightly rejected the objections raised by the election petitioner in view of the fact that there was no defect of a substantial nature in the successful

p. 439 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

candidate’s nomination paper and accompanying documents. With the aforesaid averments it was prayed that the Election Petition filed by the election petitioner be dismissed by the High Court as being devoid of merit. 6.1. The election petitioner filed his replication to the written statement which is summarised as under: (A) While denying the contents of the written statement to be true and the documents attached to the written statement being fabricated, forged and misleading, the election petitioner reiterated the contents of his election petition. C (B) The election petitioner has taken an additional plea to the effect that on 14.08.2017, the Election Officer Rampur, had forwarded a representation which was moved by one, Mr. Akash Kumar Saxena, Chairman of the Indian Industries Association, to the Chief Election Officer, disclosing discrepancies with respect to the Pan Card of the successful D candidate. That the successful candidate had clandestinely procured a new Pan Card bearing No. DWAPK7513R which was issued to him on 24.03.2015, showing his date of birth as 30.09.1990 by deliberately concealing the fact that he had already been issued Pan Card No. DFOPK6164K on E 30.08.2013 in which his date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1993. As per the original pan card, the successful candidate was less than twenty-five years of age, whereas, according to his new pan card he was twenty-six years of age. (C) Further, the successful candidate had opened a bank account F no. 34341386006 in State Bank of India with Pan Card No. DFOPK6164K wherein his date of birth in the bank account was recorded as 01.01.1993. That the successful candidate had two pan cards and had not disclosed his correct income while contesting the legislative assembly elections. Evidence: G

7. The parties let in oral as well as documentary evidence in the Election Petition: 7.1. The election petitioner let in oral evidence through PW-1 - PW-4 witnesses. The election petitioner got marked Exhibit P-1 to P-4 documents. H

p. 440 Copy page pinpoint

A 7.2. The successful candidate let in oral evidence through DW-1 - DW-10 witnesses. The successful candidate got marked Exb. No.- R1-R12 documents. 7.3. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, High Court allowed the Election Petition filed by the election petitioner B herein and set aside the election of the successful candidate/appellant herein in respect of 34-Suar Constituency, District Rampur, held in the year 2017. Being aggrieved successful candidate has preferred this appeal. Submissions: C We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel instructed by learned counsel on behalf of the successful candidate whose election has been set aside by the High Court and Shri Aadil Singh Boparai, learned counsel for the respondent instructed by learned counsel.

8. The submissions on behalf of the appellant-successful candidate do not call for reiteration and are epitomised as under: 8.1. Learned senior counsel, Shri Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the successful candidate submitted that the impugned judgment of the High Court had been rendered based on an erroneous appreciation of law and facts relating to the controversy at hand, and also on an incorrect understanding of the fact in issue. That the appellant-successful candidate, at the time of filing his nomination as well on the date of polling, had completed the age of twenty-five years and was therefore competent in all respects to hold the office of Member of Legislative Assembly. 8.2. It was contented that the fact in issue in the present case is not whether the successful candidate entered his date of birth as 01.01.1993 in his official documents, but whether the successful candidate was actually born on 01.01.1993; or whether despite the fact that certain documents had recorded the successful candidate’s date of birth to be 01.01.1993, he was actually born on another date, i.e., 30.09.1990. G 8.3. It was submitted that the best evidence as regards the actual date of birth of the successful candidate, was the testimonial evidence of the successful candidate’s mother (DW-5) and the doctor (DW-3) who delivered the successful candidate. That the law of evidence requires that direct and primary evidence, if available, must be given H for proof of a fact and such evidence would be the best evidence of

p. 441 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

such fact. This foundational rule is reflected, inter-alia, in Sections 59 A to 65 and Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence Act” for the sake of brevity). In the instant case, the evidence of the successful candidate’s mother and the delivering doctor is direct oral evidence of the fact of birth of the successful candidate on a given date. B 8.4. It was vehemently contended that DW-5’s testimony was fully corroborated by the recitals in her service book and salary register, as also by the hospital records. That the hospital records such as the Emergency O.T. (E.O.T) register and the Maternity Labour room Register (MLR), were not only primary and direct evidences that were C contemporaneous to the event of birth, but were also public documents which were produced from proper custody and therefore, they would be both relevant and admissible under Section 35 read with Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 8.5. Further, referring to the testimony of DW-3, namely, Dr. Uma D Singh, who is stated to be the doctor who enabled the delivery of the successful candidate, it was submitted that the statements made by DW- 3, when considered together with the hospital records, conclusively establish that the successful candidate was born on 30.09.1990. That DW-3 was one such witness, who was connected with the successful candidate’s birth in a manner as would enable her to vouchsafe the truth as to the date of birth of the successful candidate. That the High Court committed a grave error in disregarding the evidence of DW-3 on the sole ground that she stated that she was unable to say with certainty that the baby born to DW-5 on 30.09.1990, was in fact, the successful candidate. That to expect DW-3 to make such an assertion, was an absurd requirement, which was not contemplated under law. 8.6. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel sought to explain the discrepancy in the period of pregnancy of the successful candidate’s mother, as recorded in Column 10 of the relevant entry in the maternity labour room register by stating that the age of the successful candidate’s G mother at the time, i.e., 38 years, had been incorrectly entered in the column dedicated for ‘period of pregnancy.’ That this was in the nature of a clerical error and ought not to be held to have a material bearing on the authenticity of the record itself, more so, when all other details recorded in the said register were correct. H

p. 442 Copy page pinpoint

A 8.7. As regards the allegations of forgery and fabrication of the hospital records, it was averred that by making entries as to the successful candidate’s birth on a later date, it would require a single horizontal space in the registers ought to have been kept blank since 1990, till whenever the successful candidate is alleged to have created the forged records. Such an assumption is wholly improbable and therefore, there is no B possibility of forgery and fabrication of the hospital records. Further, no such absurd presumption could be made particularly when the hospital records stood corroborated by the testimonial evidence of DW-4, namely, Dr. Vineeta Das, Head of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics as well as by the birth certificate dated 21.04.2015 issued by DW-3 and C DW 4 and proved by them. 8.8. It was next contended that the High Court’s reliance on school records of the successful candidate, wherein his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 01.01.1993, was misplaced. That school records are not direct evidence of the fact of birth and cannot, on a balance of D probabilities, be given pre-eminence over direct evidence of the mother, delivering doctor and contemporaneously created hospital records. In order to buttress such averments, reliance was placed on Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit A.I.R. 1988 SC 1796; Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673; Joshna Gouda vs. Brundaban Gouda (2012) 5 SCC 634. E 8.9. It was further submitted that the error in the school records had been sufficiently explained by DW-5, as well as DW-9, who is the person who is stated to have accompanied the successful candidate to get him admitted in school. That it is a common practice in India to give a belated date of birth at the time of admission in school so as to secure benefit of enhanced years of public service, and such practice has been acknowledged by this Court in Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 SC 282. 8.10. As regards the election petitioner’s reliance on the GIS nomination form of the successful candidate’s mother, wherein she had stated that the successful candidate was eight years old as on 26.04.2001, it was submitted that the said document was neither direct nor contemporaneous proof of birth on a certain date. The GIS nomination form was at best a piece of circumstantial evidence which had no weight and could not establish that the successful candidate’s date of birth was H 01.01.1993.

p. 443 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

8.11. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was asserted that the election petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence so as to discharge the burden of proof to prove his positive case, as required under law, vide Birad Mal Singhvi (supra) and Sushil Kumar (supra). That the entire case of the election petitioner was based on conjectures and farfetched presumptions as to exertion of pressure by the successful candidate’s father, for issuance of forged certificates and therefore, the Election Petition ought not to have been entertained by the High Court. With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the instant appeal be allowed by dismissing the election petition. C

9. The submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for respondent- election petitioner Sri Boparai, are summarised as under: 9.1. Learned counsel for the election petitioner supported the impugned judgment and contended that there was no infirmity in the findings and decision of the High Court which would call for interference by this Court. Hence, it was prayed that the instant appeal may be dismissed and the judgment of the High Court dated 16.12.2019 be confirmed. 9.2. Learned counsel elaborated his submissions by contending that the nomination of the successful candidate herein to be a candidate for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Elections from the Suar District Constituency, District Rampur, was erroneously accepted as the successful candidate was underaged and had not completed twenty- five years of age which is a qualification and an eligibility criterion under Article 173 (b) of the Constitution of India. That since the nomination of the successful candidate was improperly accepted and he was ultimately declared the successful candidate in the said election, the result was liable to be set aside which was rightly done by the High Court. 9.3. Learned counsel for the election petitioner contended that the correct date of birth of the successful candidate is 01.01.1993 as recorded in the Class-X mark-sheet of the successful candidate; the passports issued to him dated 28.08.2006 and 13.07.2012, the successful candidate’s original birth certificate dated 28.06.2012 issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, the passport applications of the successful candidate pertaining to the year 2012 and the visa issued to the successful H

p. 444 Copy page pinpoint

A candidate dated 09.07.2014. It was further contended that the aforesaid documents are public documents and the same were not denied by the successful candidate, hence, they were admissible and relevant under Section 21 and 35 of the Evidence Act and a presumption would arise as to the validity of such documents. B 9.4. It was next contended that the defence taken by the successful candidate that he came to know about the incorrect date of birth mentioned in the aforesaid documents only in the year 2015 and the passport and other documents were eventually cancelled, did not inspire confidence as the successful candidate in his cross-examination had stated that the process of cancellation was initiated in the year 2018, C much after the election petitioner filed the Election Petition before the High Court. That such a conduct of the successful candidate was demonstrative of the fact that attempts were made to fabricate an earlier date of birth in the records pertaining to the successful candidate, only when his election was challenged, and not prior to that. D 9.5. Learned counsel for the election petitioner averred that he had discharged the initial burden of proof by adducing the aforesaid documents as evidence wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was recorded as 01.01.1993. That the existence of such documents as well as the contents thereof stood admitted by the successful candidate; so also, the fact that the said documents were signed and submitted by him before the competent authorities. In that context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Privy Council in Rani Chandra Kunwar vs. Chaudhari Narpat Singh and Ors. (1906) SCC OnLine PC 26 to contend that once the successful candidate had admitted the execution of the aforesaid public documents, the onus of proof shifted on the successful candidate to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption and further demonstrate that his date of birth is 30.09.1990 and not 01.01.1993. 9.6. The election petitioner also relied on Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673, to assert that, when both the parties have adduced evidence in an election petition, the question of onus of proof would become academic and therefore, it was for the Court to appreciate the contrary oral and documentary evidence and arrive at a conclusion, de hors considerations as to who was to discharge whole or part of the burden of proof. H

p. 445 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

9.7. Learned counsel for the election petitioner referred to the A GIS (Group Insurance Scheme) Nomination form in the service book (Ex. R-11 Paper No. A-95/25) of the successful candidate’s mother, which was proved in evidence by DW-1- S. K. Tiwari, Assistant Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh, to contend that the said form was signed by the mother of the successful candidate on 26.04.2001 and in the said form she had admitted that the successful candidate was eight years old as on 26.04.2001. Such an admission was conclusive proof of the fact that he was born in the year 1993 and was therefore eight years old in April, 2001. The said GIS Form was adduced as a piece of evidence by the successful candidate and was also adverted to by DW-5 – Dr. Tazeen Fatima in her cross-examination. However, she did not offer any explanation as to the successful candidate’s age in the said form. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal (1972) 1 SCC 9 wherein it was observed that once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence and no further evidence would have to be let in by the party relying on such an admission to establish the fact so admitted. 9.8. It was submitted that the E.O.T Register (Ex. R-4 Paper No. A-100/1-2) and the M.L.R. Register (Ex. R-5 Paper No. A-101/1-2) adduced as evidence by the successful candidate, were neither authenticated nor certified by the competent authority of Queen Mary’s Hospital. There were irregularities including entry of wrong name, discrepancy in the records pertaining to period of pregnancy, etc., which were admitted by DW-3, Dr. Uma Singh, in her cross-examination and more importantly, D.W.3 also stated that she could not confirm that the successful candidate was born on 30.09.1990. F 9.9. It was next contended that the Birth Certificate issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was shown as 30.09.1990, was based on a purported entry in the birth register (Ex. R-12 A 96/4-5) which was tendered as evidence by DW-2, Dr. Archana Dwivedi, Additional Municipal Commissioner, G Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and the said entry was as a result of manipulation of the public records. That DW-2 in her cross-examination had stated that the birth register was maintained by a clerk and was not in the prescribed format as per the mandate of the Registration of Births Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for the sake of brevity), and H

p. 446 Copy page pinpoint

A the same had not been authenticated or verified by a competent official. Further, the birth register was not paginated and the entry of the name of the successful candidate’s mother was not made in a chronological order. Also, DW-2 testified that the Birth List maintained by the hospital, on the basis of which birth entry of successful candidate’s name was made in the birth register maintained by the municipality, was not available. Therefore, the substratum or the basis of making the entry in the birth register maintained by the municipality was not available and hence, the corresponding entry was a result of extraneous factors. 9.10. Further, it was submitted that reliance placed by the successful candidate on the result of the ossification test did not prove that he was born on 30.09.1990. In order to buttress such contention, learned counsel for the election petitioner placed reliance on Mukarrab and others vs. State of U.P. (2017) 2 SCC 210 wherein it was observed by this Court that Ossification Test cannot be solely relied upon and is not a conclusive proof of age. In furtherance of such an argument, learned counsel for the election petitioner referred to the testimony of DW-8, Dr. Satbir Singh Ken, who, in his cross-examination had admitted that ossification test is not a definitive proof of age as the result of such a test could vary from the actual age, to a certain degree. With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed that the present appeal be dismissed as being devoid of merit and the impugned judgment be confirmed. Points for consideration:

10. Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India states that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislature of the state unless he is, in the case of seat in the legislative assembly, not less than twenty-five years of age and in the case of a seat in the legislative council not less than thirty years of age. Having heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the High Court was correct and justified in allowing Election Petition No.08 of 2017 filed by the election petitioner against the successful candidate and thereby setting aside the election of the successful candidate to the office of Member of Legislative

p. 447 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

Assembly, from 34-Suar Constituency, District Rampur, A Uttar Pradesh, on the ground that there was improper acceptance of successful candidate’s nomination paper and there was a breach of Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India? (ii) What order? B

11. The narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration except stating that the successful candidate is aggrieved by his election to the Legislative Assembly vis-à-vis 34- Suar Constituency, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, being set aside at the instance of the election petitioner by the impugned judgment of the High Court. C

12. Before proceeding to consider the evidence let in by the respective parties in order to ascertain whether, the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in allowing the Election Petition filed by the election petitioner herein, are just and proper, it is necessary to discuss and delineate on the relevant judgments of this Court cited at the Bar with D regard to burden of proof in light of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act. 12.1. The legal scheme governing various aspects of ‘burden of proof’ in the Indian context, is contained in Sections 101 to 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. E 12.2. As per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, when a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. This section is based on the rule, ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which means that the burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it, because a negative is usually incapable of proof. The burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts and until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. However, the above rule is subject to the general principle that things admitted need not be proved. 12.3. The question as to whether burden of proof has been discharged by a party to the lis or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the facts are admitted or, if otherwise, H

p. 448 Copy page pinpoint

F 12.6. In terms of section 102 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden to prove its claim is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that burden and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff of the same.

G 12.7. Where, however, evidence has been led by the contesting parties, abstract considerations of onus are out of place and truth or otherwise must always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties [Kalwa Devadattam vs. Union A.I.R. 1964 SC 880] 12.8. As per Section 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, H

p. 449 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. This section amplifies the general rule in section 101 that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirmative of the issue. It lays down that if a person wishes the court to believe in the existence of a particular fact, the onus of proving that fact, is on him, unless the burden of proving it is cast by any law on any particular person. 12.9. Section 105 is an application of the rule in section 103. When parties to a dispute adduce evidence to substantiate their claim, onus becomes academic and divided, entailing each party to prove their respective plea. C 12.10. Section 106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in Section 101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Section 106 is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden but states that when a fact to be proved is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, it is for him to prove it. It applies to cases where the fact is especially D within a party’s knowledge and to none else. The expression ‘especially’ used in Section 106 means facts that are eminently or exceptionally within one’s knowledge. This means a party having personal knowledge of certain facts has a duty to appear as a witness and if he does not go to the witness box, there is a strong presumption against him. In an E Election Petition, the initial burden to prove determination of age of returned candidate lies on the petitioner, however, burden lies on the respondent to prove facts within his special knowledge. (Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra)) 12.11. The provisions of Section 106 are unambiguous and F categorical in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden but if he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106. G [Source: Sarkar on Law of Evidence, 20th Edition, Volume 2.] 12.12. In Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar (supra), the controversy was with regard to the improper acceptance of the nomination of the sole respondent therein on the premise that he was under qualified to contest the Bihar Legislative Assemble election from H

p. 450 Copy page pinpoint

A 181, Parbatta Constituency. In the said case, inter alia, the horoscope of the respondent therein and admission register of New St. Xaviers School, Boring Road, Patna and transfer certificate issued by Swami Vivekananda Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, were produced as documents to prove that the successful candidate therein was not eligible to contest the said Assembly election. In the said case, Section 35 of the Indian B Evidence Act was referred to and it was observed that the register maintained in terms of a statute or by a statutory authority in regular course of business would be a relevant fact and if such vital evidence had been produced, it would clinch the issue. It was observed that there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the date of birth was C recorded in the school register on the basis of the statement of any responsible person and that the admission register or a transfer certificate issued by a primary school do not satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Further, reference was made to Brij Mohan (supra) as well as D Birad Mal Singhvi (supra) and it was observed that in the absence of primary material on the basis whereof the age was recorded, it would not be possible to accept the evidence produced therein. While examining the admission register of the school relied upon by the successful candidate therein, it was observed that entries in the said register had been made by one person with two different pens in one sitting. Also, there were other alterations in the said register and hence, no credence could be given to the same. It was observed that forgery in the register had been done in a crude form and the High Court had noticed the same but still proceeded to rely upon the said documents which amounted to a misdirection in law. It was further observed that the respondent therein had special knowledge as to in which school he had studied and should have disclosed the same instead of disclosing the details of his education. He had taken recourse to suppression veri and suggestion falsi and had produced documents which were apparently forged and fabricated. The respondent therein could not have been admitted in New St. Xaviers Junior School, being overaged and the evidence of father of the respondent was not trustworthy. Further, the horoscope filed by the respondent in the said case did not inspire confidence. Further, DW-2 who let in evidence on the horoscope was a bystander who had nothing to do either with the preparation of the horoscope or with the writing thereof and his evidence was not trustworthy and the horoscope could not have been looked into for any purpose whatsoever. Also, an application was filed on behalf of

p. 451 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

p. 452 Copy page pinpoint

A circumstances of each case. When the evidence adduced is capable of drawing an inference either way, the view that is favourable to the returned candidate will have to be preferred. Reference was made to Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Supp.) SCC 611, wherein, it was observed that “in borderline cases the courts have to undertake the onerous task of, ‘disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the B chaff from the grain’.” Analysis: I shall now analyse the oral and documentary evidence on record in order to assess the correctness of the findings of the High Court. C i) Re: Passports and Visas of the appellant-successful candidate:

13. The election petitioner adduced Ex. P-1 and P-3 wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was shown as 01.01.1993, to contend that the successful candidate was less than 25 years of age at D the time of filing his nomination and the fact that the aforesaid documents indicated the date of birth as 01.01.1993 was not disputed by the successful candidate although the said date was not accepted as his date of birth. 13.1. It is noted that the successful candidate had made applications under his own signature to obtain the passports in the year E 2006 and 2012 (Ex. P-1 – Paper No. A- 49/1-4) wherein he had mentioned his date of birth as 01.01.1993. Therefore, the High Court held that the successful candidate had always been aware of the fact that in the educational certificate and passports, his date of birth was shown as 01.01.1993 and had accepted the same till the year 2015. F 13.2. PW-2, Shri. Mohd. Naseem, Passport Officer, Bareilly, deposed that he had brought photocopies of the documents referred to by the successful candidate at the time of making an application for the issuance of his Passport No. K-7951741 which was issued to him on 13.07.2012 from Bareilly Passport Office. PW-2 deposed that the successful candidate had annexed a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Health Department/Municipal Corporation, Rampur, on 28.06.2012, along with a copy of his online application form, a copy of a pass book pertaining to his bank account held with State Bank and a copy of his old Passport No. F-8757022 issued on 28.08.2006 which was valid till 31.12.2010. To a question whether self-attested copies of documents submitted by an applicant are maintained in the records,

p. 453 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

PW-2 deposed that original copies are returned and self-attested copies A are scanned. 13.3. When a question was posed as to whether by modifying the particular entry of date of birth in the successful candidate’s old Passport No. K-7951741, a new Passport No. Z-4307442 after mentioning his date of birth as 30.09.1990 was issued to him on B 10.01.2018, PW-2 deposed that he was not in a position to answer the question as each application was available separately in the P.S.P. system. He deposed that in compliance of the Court’s order, he had brought only the available record of Passport No. K-7951741 and if after that a new Passport No. Z-4307442 was issued, he would have to check from the system. That he would be able to present records pertaining to Passport No. Z-4307442 on the next date fixed by the Court, if the same had in fact been issued. 13.4. Further, on perusal of Ex. P-1, paper No. A-49/1-4, which is the Passport application dated 06.07.2012 made by the successful candidate, I am of the opinion that the same is made under his own signature and records his date of birth as 01.01.1993, and place of birth as Rampur. In that background, it is necessary to examine whether the information entered in the passport application dated 06.07.2012, would amount to proof, as to the contents of such application, including the date and place of birth entered therein. E 13.5. I am of the view that great evidentiary value has to be attached to an application submitted to a government establishment or Office, such as a Passport Office and the details entered in such application, together with the documents submitted therewith, must be understood to be tendered by the applicant who signs the application form thereby accepting that the information submitted therein is true and correct and to the best of his knowledge. I find that the successful candidate herein, having signed the application form dated 06.07.2012 wherein it has been expressly entered that his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and place of birth was Rampur, cannot, at a later juncture claim that he was unaware, till the year 2015 that his date of birth as per various documents was 01.01.1993 and his place of birth was Lucknow. The fact that the successful candidate self-attested the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Rampur, wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 01.01.1993, would establish that the successful candidate acknowledged, accepted and sought to rely on such fact in H

p. 454 Copy page pinpoint

A order to secure a passport on the basis of such information. It is therefore not open to the successful candidate to subsequently resile from the aforesaid clear admission and contend that he was unaware that an ‘incorrect’ date of birth was recorded in certain documents. Having admitted the fact that his date of birth was 01.01.1993 and place of birth was Rampur, in the application form dated 06.07.2012 which was at an B undisputed point of time, the successful candidate cannot resile from the same. 13.6. I also take note of the fact that the successful candidate had travelled to many foreign countries on his passports which were obtained in the year 2006 and 2012 and the visa which was granted in the year C 2014 and in these documents his date of birth was shown as 01.01.1993. I am unable to accept that the successful candidate, who regularly used the passports obtained in the years 2006 and 2012 for international travel, failed all along, to notice that the date of birth recorded in the passports was incorrect. I refuse to believe that an educated individual such as the D successful candidate herein, had not, in over nine years (2006 to 2015) looked at the first page of his passport and only later grasped that the date of birth entered therein was ‘incorrect’ only while he was on the verge of entering politics and contesting an election to the Legislative Assembly. E 13.7. Further, I also take note of the deposition of P.W.4. who deposed that all the papers related to Birth Certificate No. 3857, Register No. R.N.P.B. 2012-03857, dated 28.06.2012 had been destroyed in a fire due to a short circuit on 08.05.2015 in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur and that no papers pertaining to a period prior to such date were available in the Office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur. F That such documents were available only in a computer-generated form and a copy of Birth Certificate No. 3857, Register No. R.N.P.B. 2012- 03857, dated 28.06.2012 was produced wherein the successful candidate’s date of birth was recorded as 01.01.1993. 13.8. The stand taken by the successful candidate that all documents pertaining to the Birth Certificate dated 28.06.2012 were burnt due to a short circuit on 08.05.2015 in the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, would suggest that the said birth certificate, wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was recorded as 01.01.1993 came to be later cancelled under suspicious circumstances. It is rather strange that a birth certificate pertaining to the year 1993, was destroyed

p. 455 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

in the year 2015 under peculiar circumstances, at a time when the successful candidate was making several efforts to get his date of birth changed in various records. It is rather unbelievable that just when the successful candidate began assuming an active role in politics and undertook various efforts towards correcting his date of birth in several records, i.e., in the year 2015, the birth certificate and relevant documents pertaining to the said certificate, wherein the date of birth of the successful candidate was recorded as 01.01.1993 came to be destroyed in a fire and was accordingly cancelled. 13.9. It is further noted that an application seeking a birth certificate was made on 28.06.2012 bearing No. RNPP 2012-03857 to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur and on the same date, birth certificate was issued to the successful candidate showing the date of birth as “01-Jan- 1993”. The place of birth was shown as ^^?ksj eht ckt [kk] tsy jksM] jkeiqj**. The said address is shown to be the address of his parents at the time of birth of the child i.e., the successful candidate as well as the permanent address of parents. The inference to be drawn from the said document is that in the year 2012, the petitioner consciously applied to Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur for obtaining the birth certificate in order to append the same for obtaining a new passport. The further inference that I draw from the said document is that the successful candidate has sought his birth certificate from the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur as he was born at Rampur and the birth certificate clearly indicates that he was born on 01.01.1993. Subsequently, the said birth certificate was cancelled. PW-4 has deposed that all the documents relating to the issuance of birth certificate to the successful candidate were destroyed in fire on 08.05.2015 which is indeed strange and mysterious as by then the successful candidate had already obtained “duplicate” birth certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow. ii) Re: Educational Certificates of the successful candidate:

14. As per the Secondary School examination Class X certificate (Exhibit P4, paper no. A-25/1) issued in the year 2007 by the C.B.S.E., the successful candidate’s date of birth has been recorded as 01.01.1993. G The High Court has observed that the stand taken by the successful candidate in this regard is that he came to know that his date of birth was ‘incorrectly’ mentioned as 01.01.1993 in the Certificate of Secondary School Examination (Class X) only in the year 2015 when he was scrutinising his educational records, was unbelievable and untrue. H

p. 456 Copy page pinpoint

A 14.1. As regards the successful candidate’s educational records, which record his date of birth to be 01.01.1993, his version is that due his father’s busy social and political life, his father’s friend Shahzeb Khan (DW-9) got him admitted in the Nursery Class of St. Paul School, Rampur. It is the successful candidate’s case that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 01.01.1993 instead of 30.09.1990 and the same continued in B all his educational records. That he made an application to C.B.S.E. through the Principal of St. Paul School to change the date of birth mentioned in his records and also sent many reminders to the school and the same were forwarded to the office of C.B.S.E. in Allahabad, however, till date no information had been given to him by C.B.S.E. C 14.2. In this regard, D.W.-5 mother of the successful candidate deposed that her family friend Shahzeb Khan (DW-9) took the successful candidate to St. Paul School, Rampur, for his admission in Nursery Class in the year 1995 and wrongly entered the date of birth as 01.01.1993 instead of 30.09.1990 in the admission form. That the successful candidate was born on 30.09.1990 and the date of birth mentioned in his educational record was incorrect. DW-5 was asked if she knew that her son-the successful candidate had mentioned his date of birth in Class X, Class XII, under graduate degree and post graduate degree as 01.01.1993. DW-5 deposed that when her son was in the final year of his graduation, he informed her that the date of birth in his educational record was wrongly mentioned and that the date of birth in other educational records could not be corrected without changing the date of birth mentioned in the Class-X Certificate. Therefore, an application was made to the Principal, St. Paul School Rampur, to correct the date of birth as per the school records. F 14.3. DW-9, who is stated to be the person who accompanied the successful candidate to St. Paul School to get him admitted in nursery class was also examined. DW-9 deposed that in the year 1995, he took the successful candidate to St. Paul’s School, Civil Lines, Rampur, to get him admitted into the said school. That after completing the admission process, the master who was in charge of giving admission, got the successful candidate enrolled in Nursery class and put his date of birth as 01.01.1993 in the admission form and asked DW-9 to sign it and DW- 9 signed the same. 14.4. I am of the view that the version narrated by the successful candidate to explain the ‘error’ in his date of birth, as recorded in all educational records, would not aid the successful candidate’s case.

p. 457 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

Further, it is to be noted that DW-5-Tazeen Fatima in Paragraph A 12 of her Examination-in-Chief and the successful candidate in Paragraph 53 of his written statement had stated that DW-9- Shahzeb Khan, the successful candidate’s father’s friend, had got him admitted in the nursery class of St. Paul School, Rampur, in the year 1995, and had inadvertently mentioned the date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993. B However, DW-9- Shahzeb Khan, in Paragraph 5 of his Examination-in- Chief has deposed that the master had written the date of birth of the successful candidate in the admission form. Therefore, I am not inclined to attach much weight to the statements of either DW-5 or DW-7 in this regard as they are inconsistent with each other. C 14.5. It is further noted that the successful candidate has emphatically stated that his date of birth is 30.09.1990 and not 01.01.1993 and that an erroneous date was given at the time of his admission to nursery class in the year 1995. This would mean that the successful candidate was sought to be admitted in nursery class when he was about 5 ½ years of age which is not believable as he would be over-aged for that class. On the other hand, if he was born on 01.01.1993, it is possible that at 2 ½ years he would have been admitted to nursery class which is the right age to get admission in nursery. Further, the successful candidate has completed his 10th standard in the year 2007 and his 12th standard in the year 2009 which would mean that the successful candidate was about 14 ½ years when he completed his 10th standard and 16 ½ years when he completed his 12th standard which is the normal age to do so. If according to the successful candidate his actual date of birth is 30.09.1990, the inference is that he would have been about 17 ½ years when he completed his 10th standard and 19 ½ years when he completed his 12th standard which is improbable. Also, there is no explanation on record as to why at a belated age he has completed his 10th standard and intermediate examination in the year 2009. 14.6. D.W.-7 who is the Director of St. Paul School, Rampur, was also examined to prove the version narrated by the successful candidate. He deposed that the successful candidate addressed a letter dated 23.03.2015 to the school stating therein that in the year 2015 he came to know that his date of birth was incorrectly entered in his educational certificates as 01.01.1993 whereas his actual date of birth was 30.09.1990 and he requested DW-7 to make the necessary changes. He in turn forwarded the letter dated 23.03.2015 to the Regional Office, H

p. 458 Copy page pinpoint

A C.B.S.E, Allahabad, along with a letter issued by him to the Regional Office, C.B.S.E., dated 15.04.2015 wherein he had requested C.B.S.E. to correct the successful candidate’s date of birth. Also, he had sent two reminders to the Regional Office, C.B.S.E., Allahabad, on 19.05.2015 and 21.09.2015 stating that in the register of birth and death and the Birth Certificate provided by the Hospital, the date of birth of the successful candidate was shown as 30.09.1990 and therefore, it should be changed from 01.01.1993 to 30.09.1990. Further, in the reminders, DW-7 stated that in the register of birth and death and the Birth Certificate provided by the Hospital, the date of birth of the successful candidate was shown as 30.09.1990 and therefore, the date of birth in the educational records should also be changed from 01.01.1993 to 30.09.1990. 14.7. It is further noted that on the request made on behalf of the successful candidate, several letters were addressed by the Principal of St. Paul School, Rampur to the Regional Officer, Central Board of D Secondary Education, Allahabad requesting for permission to correct the date of birth of the successful candidate. Further, the said permission was not granted and on 30.10.2017, a letter was addressed to the mother of the successful candidate – DW-5 stating that the matter was twenty years’ old and it was not possible for the school to trace the required details. This would imply that the school records continue to show the E date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993 and on that basis the other educational records of the successful candidate also indicate his date of birth as 01.01.1993. On perusal of the application seeking passport application form submitted by the successful candidate, it is noted that his date of birth and place of birth have been mentioned as F 01.01.1993 and at Rampur. Further, two references given by him are Rafi Raja Khan and Rizwan Mohammad Khan also residing at Ghair Meer Baaz Khan, Jail Road, Rampur. The permanent residential address details of the successful candidate were also shown as Ghair Meer Baaz Khan, Jail Road, Rampur, Ganj, Uttar Pradesh. This would imply that in G the school records, the date of birth of the appellant continues to be 01.01.1993 and his place of birth as Rampur. 14.8. But since DW-7 in his request made to the C.B.S.E. relied on the entry made in the register of birth and death and the Birth Certificate provided by the Hospital, it is necessary to examine whether the said register and the hospital records were genuine and can be relied H

p. 459 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

upon. Accordingly, such questions are examined in the following section A of the analysis. iii) Re: Whether the Birth Certificate bearing Registration No. NNLKO-B-2015-292611 issued on 21.01.2015 by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, was a valid piece of evidence? B

15. To ascertain the validity of the birth certificate bearing Registration No. NNLKO-B-2015-292611 issued on 21.01.2015 by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, the High Court placed reliance on the following documents: a) (Ex. R-12 A-96/1-5), b) (Ex. R-12 A-96/3), c) (Ex. 12 Paper No. A-96/4-5) C 15.1. On perusal of the aforesaid documents and the original hospital file relating to the issuance of birth certificate of the successful candidate, produced by DW-2, it is observed that the file merely contained an application and an affidavit (Ex. R-12 A-96/1-5) dated 17.01.2015 made by the successful candidate’s mother to the City Health Officer, Nagar D Nigam, Lucknow, for the issuance of a birth certificate and a computer generated sheet (Ex. R-12 A-96/3) which contained particulars of registration of birth of the successful candidate. 15.2. The High Court further noted that the birth register (Ex. 12 Paper No. A-96/4-5) adduced by DW-2 was neither authenticated nor certified by any competent officer and was not even paginated. That DW-2 in her cross-examination had admitted that the Birth Register was maintained by a clerk and was not in the prescribed format as per the mandate of the 1969 Act, and the same had not been authenticated or verified by a competent official. Further, the Birth Register was not paginated and the entry of the name of the successful candidate’s mother was not made in a chronological order. DW-2 further testified that the Birth List maintained by the hospital, on the basis of which birth entry is made in the birth register maintained by the municipality, was not available. On the basis of the afore-stated oral and documentary evidence, the High Court held that the Birth Register (Ex. 12 Paper No. A-96/4-5) G was a clear case of manipulation and interpolation, as the entry of the successful candidate’s date of birth and name was inserted in the small space at the bottom of the page showing it to have been made on 30.09.1990. It was also noted that the successful candidate’s entry in the Birth Register did not bear any signature or an order of any authority H

p. 460 Copy page pinpoint

A of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate; the High Court, therefore held that the entry of the successful candidate’s name was not made on 30.09.1990 and that the said entry was an interpolation. 15.3. The High Court, on perusal of the affidavit (Ex. R-12 A-96/ B 1-5) dated 17.01.2015 made by Dr. Tazeen Fatima (DW-5), mother of the successful candidate while seeking issuance of the duplicate birth certificate, held that the successful candidate’s mother in the said affidavit had concealed the fact that another Birth Certificate (Ex. P-3 Paper No. A-80/1) issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, existed and was subsequently cancelled on 30.01.2015. C 15.4. It is further observed that the mother of the successful candidate made an application to the City Health Officer, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, for the issuance of the birth certificate on 17.01.2015, after twenty-five (25) years of the birth of the successful candidate and the same was endorsed by an officer of the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on D 19.01.2015 and immediately thereafter i.e. two days later, a certificate was issued to the successful candidate on 21.01.2015. That the birth certificate was issued without following the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the 1969 Act. Also Rule 9 of the U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002 and Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act, provided that any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and upon payment of the prescribed fee. Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002, provided that any birth or death which had not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and after payment of a late fee of Rs. 10/-. I am therefore of the view that, the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, had no jurisdiction to register the birth of the successful candidate after twenty-five years from the date on which he was stated to be born by the issuance of the Birth G Certificate on 21.01.2015 (Ex. P-2 Paper No. A-63/1) without an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required under Section 13(3) of the 1969 Act, read with Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Registration of the Birth and Death Rules, 2002. In fine, it is held that the birth certificate (Ex. P-2 Paper No. A-63/1) issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.01.2015 H was null and void.

p. 461 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

15.5. From the impugned judgment, it is further noted that the entry with respect to the successful candidate’s date of birth in the Birth Register, showing it to be 30.09.1990, was inserted in all probability in the year 2015. The High Court took note of the fact that the birth certificate was issued to the successful candidate on 21.01.2015 by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, and at that time, the father of the successful candidate was a Cabinet Minister of the Department of Urban Development and Local Bodies and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, came under his Ministry. The High Court was therefore of the view that the entry in the birth register was a result of undue pressure on authorities by the interested parties and was clearly manipulated. The High Court therefore, held that the evidence adduced by Dr. Tazeen Fatima (DW-5), mother of the successful candidate and by DW-10- the successful candidate, was false and wholly untrustworthy. 15.6. In order to ascertain the validity of the Birth Certificate bearing Registration No. NNLKO-B-2015-292611 issued on 21.01.2015 by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, regard must be had to the request letter addressed by the mother of the successful candidate - DW-5 – Tazeen Fatima dated 19.01.2015 to the City Health Officer, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, for the issuance of a birth certificate to the successful candidate and the copy of the Birth Register maintained by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, in which entry in the name of the successful candidate was made on 30.09.1990. E 15.7. DW-2 Dr. Archana Dwivedi, Additional Principal Commissioner, Lucknow, deposed that as per the Court’s order dated 27.05.2019, she had brought the original birth certificate of the successful candidate issued on 21.01.2015 and the Birth Record of Queen Mary’s Hospital from 01.01.1990 to 31.12.1990. She admitted that the register/ F hospital’s birth record did not contain page numbers nor had it been certified by any competent officer or been attested. DW-2 placed before the Court the relevant entry in the hospital birth record which pertained to Tazeen Fatima’s delivery on 30.09.1990. In the course of cross- examination, on being asked whether it was necessary to maintain the G birth register in the format laid down in 1969 Act, DW-2 answered in the affirmative; however, in response to the question as to whether the birth register produced by her in Court was in the prescribed format, she answered in the negative. When asked on what basis the entry was made in the birth register on 30.09.1990 and whether she had brought any papers related to it, DW-2 deposed that the entries in the birth register H

p. 462 Copy page pinpoint

A were made according to the birth list provided by the hospital, however, the said list was not available to be produced before the Court. 15.8. Answering a question as to, after how many days of making the related entries in the birth Register, the birth certificate is issued, DW-2 deposed that the birth certificate is issued when an applicant B addresses a request letter and the birth is registered immediately after receiving a birth list from the hospital. 15.9. It is noted that the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, is said to have been issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on the strength of the entry made in the birth register maintained by the Queen Mary’s C Hospital, Lucknow, wherein it was recorded that the successful candidate’s mother delivered a male child on 30.09.1990. As per the testimony of DW-2, entries in birth register are made according to the birth list provided by the hospital. Therefore, in order to give any finding as to the validity of the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, the validity of the antecedent documents, such as the birth register and birth list maintained by the hospital, on the strength of which the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 was issued, needs to be examined. 15.10. As is evident from the relevant portion of DW-2’s cross examination, although the birth register was to be maintained in the format prescribed in this regard in the 1969 Act, such format was not followed in the present case, while recording the entry pertaining to the successful candidate’s birth on 30.09.1990. Further, while it is stated that such entry was recorded in the birth register on the basis of a birth list maintained by the hospital, it is admitted that the birth list pertaining to the successful candidate’s birth is not available. This means, the basis of making the entry in the birth register maintained by the municipality was not available. 15.11. These facts are to be further considered in light of the finding of the High Court to the effect that the entry pertaining to the successful candidate was inserted in a small space at the bottom of the page, in the birth register, showing it to have been made on 30.09.1990. 15.12. It is also noted that in the relevant column of the birth register, the successful candidate was recorded as a ‘Hindu’. This would further strengthen the case of the election petitioner that the successful candidate’s details were subsequently added in a space in the register, which originally pertained to some other birth. H

p. 463 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

15.13. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that no weight can be placed on the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, which is stated to be issued on the strength of an entry made in the birth register maintained by the hospital and is created by manipulation and interpolation in the relevant hospital records. It is therefore held that in the absence of any explanation as to why the relevant birth list, forming the basis of the entry in the birth register, was not available to be produced before the Court, no evidentiary value can be attached to the birth register. It is consequently held that the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on the strength of such documents, cannot be held to be a valid document. 15.14. It is also to be noticed that Birth Certificate showing the date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993 was still holding the field and valid and thus till the same was cancelled subsequently, the successful candidate had two Birth Certificates showing his date of birth at two different places and on two different dates, namely, one on 01.01.1993 at Rampur and another on 30.09.1990 at Lucknow which clearly indicates that only one Birth Certificate was valid and correct as far as successful candidate’s date of birth is concerned. In my view, the certificate showing the date of birth of the successful candidate as 01.01.1993 at Rampur is the correct certificate and not the one subsequently obtained in the year 2015. E 15.15. In light of the above discussion, the finding of the High Court as to the invalidity of the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015, issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, is affirmed. iv) Re: Proof of Birth on 30.09.1990 on the basis of entries in Hospital records and Oral Evidence: F

16. DW-3-Dr. Uma Singh, Senior Gynaecologist, Queen Mary’s Hospital stated that she had brought with her, the relevant labour room register and operation theatre register (O.T. Register). Referring to page no. 225 of the Labour register (M.L.R.) annual no. 1826 monthly no. 257, she deposed that the entry pertained to Dr. Tazeen Fatima, successful candidate’s mother and as per the said entry she delivered a male child G on 30.09.1990 at 3:43 a.m. She also stated that she had signed and issued the duplicate birth certificate dated 21.04.2015 (A-37). In answer to a question as to the authority which issues birth certificates in Queen Mary’s Hospital, DW-3 stated that duplicate birth certificates are issued by the person nominated by the Department Head. As regards the procedure H

p. 464 Copy page pinpoint

A for issuance of duplicate birth certificates, DW-3 deposed that an application requesting for a duplicate birth certificate is to be made to the Chief Medical Superintendent of King George University who would thereafter forward the same to the Department Head who would issue the duplicate certificate. DW-3 answered in the negative when asked whether she had brought to the Court the application forwarded by the B Chief Medical Superintendent for the issuance of the duplicate birth certificate. While DW-3 stated that it was the responsibility of the Chief Medical Superintendent to inform the Municipal Corporation about the birth of a child, she stated that she was unable to confidently say whether the information of the children born on 30.09.1990 was sent to the C Municipal Corporation. 16.1. Referring to the relevant entry in page No. 174 of emergency O.T. register Annual No. 5097 and monthly no. 512, DW-3 was asked whether there was any overwriting on it and she answered in the affirmative. On being questioned whether the entries made in page no. D 225 of M.L.R. register matched the entries made in the pages of other annual numbers; DW-3 answered that they ‘do not match totally’. 16.2. Replying to a question as to whether, as per the hospital record presented before the Court it could be said that a male child was born in the hospital on 30.09.1990, DW-3 stated that the register affirms that ‘related lady’ gave birth to a male child on 30.09.1990. However, E DW-3 answered in the ‘negative’ when questioned as to whether she could definitely say that the male child born on 30.09.1990 as per the register brought by her was the successful candidate. 16.3. A question was put to DW-3 by the High Court as to whether, the E.O.T. and M.L.R. registers which DW-3 brought with her were attested or signed by any Officer or Department Head of Queen Mary’s Hospital or King George University and whether the entries in the said registers or any page was signed or counter-signed by any Officer or Department Head of the Hospital and whether the registers were authenticated by any Officer or Department Head. DW-3 deposed that both the registers were not authenticated by any Officer of Queen Mary’s Hospital or King George University and were not attested. DW-3 deposed that she had neither made the relevant entries in the register nor had she signed them. On being asked as to on what basis she could say that the entries in the register were genuine given that the same were neither made nor signed by her, DW-3 stated that she had stated that they were genuine on an understanding of the working procedure of the hospital.

p. 465 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

16.4. On a consideration of the aforesaid documentary evidence A in light of the depositions of DW-3, the High Court observed that Page No. 174 of the E.O.T. Register of Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, (Ex. R-4 Paper No. A-100/1-2) containing entries of the admission of patients on 29.09.1990, which showed that the mother of the successful candidate, Tazeen Fatima, was admitted in the hospital and gave birth to B a male child, was not trustworthy as contents had been struck out and there was overwriting on the name of “Tazeen Fatima” on the relevant page of the E.O.T. Register. That the entries made in Column 13 and Column 16 did not contain material particulars as shown in entries on the same page pertaining to other patients. The High Court also noticed that the entry in the relevant page of the E.O.T register did not match with the entries in Page No. 225 of the M.L.R. Register (Ex. R-5 Paper No. A-101/1-2). That there was overwriting on the name of “Mrs. Tazeen Fatima” on the relevant page of the M.L.R. Register and that the relevant page of the M.L.R. Register did not contain the date of admission and registration number. The High Court also observed that the period of pregnancy was recorded in the M.L.R. as 38 weeks as against the period of 32 weeks recorded in the E.O.T register. That the entry in the E.O.T. register was made in the name of one “Tazeen Fatima” while in the M.L.R. register it was made in the name of “Mrs. Tazeen Fatima” and the same was in a different hand writing and a different pen was used as compared to other particulars. E 16.5. It was further noted that the fact that the contents were scored out and overwritten in the above-mentioned registers was admitted by DW-3-Dr. Uma Singh, Sr. Gynaecologist, Queen Mary’s Hospital, (Department of Obst. & Gyno.) in her oral evidence dated 31.07.2019. F 16.6. From the deposition of DW-3-Dr. Uma Singh, it is noted that she had stated that the aforesaid two registers were neither authenticated nor signed by any officer or doctor of the hospital and that the entry pertaining to the birth on 30.09.1990 was not signed by her. DW-3 had further deposed that she could not say whether the child born on 30.09.1990 as mentioned in the above registers was the appellant G herein. DW-3 further deposed that it was the responsibility of the Chief Medical Superintendent to give information pertaining to the births to the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, and that she was never given this responsibility and that there was no post of Chief Medical Superintendent in the hospital. Further, DW-3 stated that the above-mentioned registers were maintained H

p. 466 Copy page pinpoint

A by a clerk, and the concerned clerk was not produced by the successful candidate to prove the alleged entries made in the above-mentioned registers. Further, DW-3-Dr. Uma Singh could not produce the application made by the mother of the successful candidate, to her, for the issuance of a duplicate birth certificate. B 16.7. More significantly, DW-3 who is said to have delivered the successful candidate on 30.09.1990 could not categorically say that the male child that she delivered was indeed the successful candidate. Thus, there is no clinching evidence in this regard despite the documents sought to be produced, which in any case have not been rightly believed by the High Court owing to overwriting, interpolation etc. and DW-3 not being C able to categorically state that successful candidate was delivered by her on 30.09.1990. Therefore, in my view the evidence of DW-3 does not, in any way further the case of the successful candidate. 16.8. DW-4, Dr. Vineeta Das is stated to be the doctor who issued the Duplicate Birth Certificate on 21.04.2015. Referring to Document D A-37 (Duplicate Birth Certificate issued on 21.04.2015) DW-4 was asked whether the same had been signed by her, she answered in the affirmative. As to the contents of Document A-37, DW-4 deposed that it was a duplicate birth certificate which was issued on 21.04.2015 by the Gynaecology Department of the hospital she worked at. DW-4 further deposed that in the first column, it had been recorded that the birth certificate pertained to the baby of Tazeen Fatima, the sex and caste of the child i.e., Male and Muslim, were also recorded; in the second column the name of the mother, Smt. Tazeen Fatima was written and in the third column; father’s name i.e., Mohd. Azam Khan was written; and in the fourth column, the grandfather’s name was written. DW-4 deposed that in the next line, the date and time of delivery i.e., 30.09.1990 at 3:43 a.m. were mentioned. 16.9. On being questioned as to the procedure that is followed for issuing a duplicate birth certificate, DW-4 stated that the Chief Medical Superintendent, King George Medical University sends a letter to the Head G of Department who in turn appoints a Medical Consultant for the issuance of duplicate birth certificates and after that the clerk makes the duplicate birth certificate which has to be signed by the Head of Department. 16.10. On being questioned whether the entries made in Page no. 174 of Manual No. 5097 were made by her, DW-4 answered in the H negative.

p. 467 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

16.11. On appreciating the above statements in light of the documents referred to above, it is noted that DW-4 in her cross- examination had deposed that birth certificate was issued in the instant case on an application received by the Chief Medical Superintendent but she could not name the medical consultant nominated to prepare the duplicate birth certificate nor could she produce any document relating thereto. 16.12. The High Court observed that the entries in the E.O.T. register (Ex. R-4 Paper No. A100/1-2) and in the M.L.R. register (Ex. R-5 Paper No. A101/1-2) could not be proved to be genuine by the successful candidate and that he failed to establish that he was the child born on 30.09.1990, as recorded in the aforesaid registers. 16.13. The High Court therefore rightly held that the successful candidate could not prove that he was born on 30.09.1990 at Lucknow and the evidence adduced by the mother of the successful candidate (DW-5) regarding the alleged birth on 30.09.1990 could not be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence. 16.14. In furtherance of the RTI application dated 31.08.2017, filed by the successful candidate (during the pendency of the Election Petition before the High Court) seeking information as to his date of birth, DW-4- Dr. Vineeta Das issued a letter (Ex. R-9 Paper No. A42/3) E dated 12.09.2017, to the Public Information Officer/Chief Medical Superintendent of King George Medical University, Lucknow, wherein she had stated that the successful candidate was born on 30.09.1990. Upon perusal of the letter dated 12.09.2017, it is observed that the correctness of the contents of the said letter was completely lost in view of the fact that in the relevant page of the E.O.T. Register (Ex. R-4 F Paper No. A100/1-2) and in the relevant page of the M.L.R. Register (Ex. R-5 Paper No. A101/1-2), there was no mention of the name of the successful candidate. Thus, the birth of the successful candidate (dated 30.09.1990) could not be related to those entries. The High Court further observed that DW-4 in her cross-examination had stated that she was G neither related to the delivery of the successful candidate nor had she made the entries in the E.O.T. Register. The High Court therefore observed that, without there being any record present with DW-4, it was wrong on her part to certify that the successful candidate was born on 30.09.1990 in Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow. H

p. 468 Copy page pinpoint

A 16.15. Based on the above reasoning, the High Court was rightly of the view that the evidence given by DW-3- Dr. Uma Singh and DW- 10- the successful candidate could not establish that he was born on 30.09.1990 in Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow. 16.16. It is obvious on a perusal of the E.O.T. and M.L.R. registers that the same are riddled with discrepancies, over-writing and factual inaccuracies. A glaring discrepancy, which would have a material bearing on the successful candidate’s case is that the period of pregnancy recorded in the M.L.R. register was recorded as 38 weeks as against the period of 32 weeks recorded in the E.O.T register. It is also noted that in the M.L.R. register, Mrs. Tazeen Fatima’s name alone has been written in a different handwriting and different ink as compared to the rest of the particulars pertaining to such entry. This would indicate that the name of the successful candidate’s mother was entered and adjusted into the available space, and corresponding to particulars, which pertained to some other patient in the Registers. D 16.17. While DW-3 has deposed that the duplicate birth certificate was issued after the application was made by the successful candidate’s mother to the Chief Medical Superintendent of King George University, requesting for it which was forwarded to the department head of the concerned hospital, but D.W.3 could not produce the forwarding letter. E No effort was made by the successful candidate to produce the same by procuring it by way of making an R.T.I. application. Therefore, I am not convinced that the due procedure was followed before issuing the duplicate birth certificate dated 21.04.2015. In fact, when enquired about the original birth certificate of the duplicate certificate of the successful candidate, there was no answer given. F 16.18. Having already noted that the entries pertaining to the birth of the successful candidate, in the E.O.T. and M.L.R. registers were mired with discrepancies, over-writing and factual inaccuracies, I am unable to ignore the same, especially since both such registers were not authenticated by any Officer of Queen Mary’s Hospital or King George G University and were not attested. By DW-3’s own admission, the only basis on which she was stating that the relevant entries in the registers were genuine was on her understanding of the working procedures of the hospital. This does not inspire much confidence as to the genuineness of the entries made in the registers, which ex facie appear to be H manipulated.

p. 469 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

16.19. Further, it is noted from the Labour Room Register that the A doctor who attended DW-5-the mother of the successful candidate at the Queen Mary’s Hospital was Prof. (Dr.) A. Harish and not Dr. Uma Singh. Dr. A. Harish has not been examined in the matter. 16.20. I, therefore, am not inclined to place much weight on the testimony of DW-4, as she had not made the entries in the E.O.T. Register. B Therefore, her statements are not persuasive. I, therefore, affirm the findings and decision of the High Court qua this issue also. v) Re: Medical Examination Report of the successful candidate: C

17. The High Court did not accept the report of the ossification test, as conclusive proof of the successful candidate’s age as the same could not be proved by DW-8, Dr. Satbir Singh Ken, Radiologist, District Hospital, Rampur, who was a part of the Medical Board that determined the age of the successful candidate to be 26 years. The High Court D based its decision on the fact that DW-8 could not produce the original medical report or the records pertaining thereto. It was also observed that a bone ossification test would always have to be considered having regard to the fact that the results thereof could differ, by up to two years from the actual age of the person tested, vide Mukarrab and others vs. State of U.P. (2017) 2 SCC 210. 17.1. In this background, it may also be noted that DW-8 deposed that in his opinion, there could be a difference of one year between the actual age of the successful candidate and the age suggested in the report of the bone ossification test. That on being asked whether it was correct to say that bone ossification tests could not tell the correct age, DW-8 refused to make any comment and stated that he was only a radiologist and had given only the X-Ray report. 17.2. The aforesaid statements would have to be considered in light of the law relating to the evidentiary value of a bone ossification test. This Court has, in Mukarrab (supra), declared that an ossification test could not be solely relied upon as conclusive proof of age and the said test is by no means an infallible or accurate test to determine the correct number of years of a person’s life. The general rule for determining the age is that it can vary plus or minus two years and that the date of birth of a person is to be determined on the basis of the H

p. 470 Copy page pinpoint

A material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by parties. It has therefore been authoritatively laid down by this Court that the report of an ossification test can, at most, be used to corroborate other relevant evidences, oral or documentary. Even so, relying on the aforesaid case, the High Court had rightly observed that if the margin factor of (plus or minus) two years is applied to the case of the successful candidate, it could also mean that in the year 2017 the age of the successful candidate was 24 years which would indicate that he was born in the year 1993. 17.3. In that background, I am of the view that the medical examination report of the successful candidate dated 27.01.2017 based on an ossification test conducted, wherein his age was recorded to be twenty-six years at the relevant time, cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of his age and the same would not hold any water. This is especially so when other documents such as matriculation certificate, date of birth certificate issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur and passports, which have been acknowledged by this Court on various occasions to serve as proof of date of birth are in fact available in the instant case but the date of birth recorded in the said documents is contrary to the result of the ossification test. While I may have been inclined to place some weight on the result of the ossification test, in case other documents which would serve as proof of age were not available, I am unable to accept the same in the instant case. This is because other documents which would serve as proof of age are available and the date of birth recorded in such documents is contrary to the result of the ossification test. Therefore, I affirm the findings and decision of the High Court qua this issue also. F vi) Re: Declaration of the successful candidate’s mother while submitting the G.I.S. Nomination Form:

18. This issue pertains to the evidentiary value of the contents of the G.I.S. (Group Insurance Scheme) nomination form which formed a part of the Service Book (Ex. R-11 Paper No. A95/1-34) of the successful G candidate’s mother, which is relied upon by the successful candidate. In Paper No. A95/25 of the said Service Book is the G.I.S. Nomination Form of the mother of the successful candidate, which records, inter- alia, that on 26.04.2001, she had nominated the appellant-successful candidate and two other family members under the Group Insurance H Scheme by stating their respective age as on the aforesaid date. In the

p. 471 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

said form, the age of the successful candidate is stated as eight years as A on 26.04.2001. 18.1. The High Court observed that DW-1- Dr. Shailendra K. Tiwari, Assistant Director of Higher Education, Prayagraj, U.P., brought the successful candidate’s mother’s Service Book (Ex. R-11 A95/1-34) which contained the G.I.S. (Group Insurance Scheme) Nomination Form B (Ex. R-11 A95/25) which was signed by the mother of the successful candidate on 26.04.2001. The High Court concluded that the successful candidate was born in the year 1993. 18.2. The High Court further observed that the election petitioner had specifically raised this argument in paragraph 12 (iii) of the Election C Petition and yet, the successful candidate did not make any averment in this regard so as to explain the detail entered as such in the G.I.S. nomination form. 18.3. The G.I.S. Nomination Form (Ex. R-11 Paper No. A95/25) showed that the successful candidate was only eight years old in the year 2001, which would imply that he was born in the year 1993. Further, such admission on the part of DW-5-Tazeen Fatima at an undisputed point of time would have to be considered as conclusive proof of the fact that the successful candidate was born in the year 1993 and was therefore eight years old in April, 2001 in the absence of any explanation to resile from the said admission. The said G.I.S Form was adduced as evidence by none other than the successful candidate and was also referred to by DW-5–Tazeen Fatima in her cross-examination. However, she did not offer any explanation about the entry as to the successful candidate’s age in the said form and had not disputed the said G.I.S. Form which was a part of her Service Book. The successful candidate, having relied on DW-5’s Service Book, of which the G.I.S. form is a part, cannot now seek to rely on the same selectively, i.e., on only those details entered in the Service Book/G.I.S. form which would potentially support his case while resiling or disregarding as irrelevant any entry or detail therein which would have an adverse impact on his case. G 18.4. This Court has held in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal (1972) 1 SCC 9 that once a document is properly admitted by the party producing the said document, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence and no further evidence would have to be let in by the party relying on such admission to establish the fact so admitted aliunde. H

p. 472 Copy page pinpoint

A 18.5. The said G.I.S. Form was adduced as evidence at the behest of the successful candidate and the contents of the same were proved by DW-1-Dr. Shailendra K. Tiwari and were not disputed by DW-5- Tazeen Fatima. Therefore, the successful candidate cannot now be allowed to selectively admit the contents of the same. No attempt was made by the successful candidate to resile from the said admission by offering any explanation as to why reliance could not be placed on the said document when the successful candidate himself was relying on it. 18.6. I, therefore, affirm the findings of the High Court that the G.I.S. Nomination Form (Ex. R-11 Paper No. A95/25) came into existence at an undisputed point of time and is a piece of evidence which proves that the successful candidate was born in the year 1993. vii) Re: Aadhar Card, Voter I.D. Card and Driving License:

19. This issue pertains to the effect of the following documents of identity, wherein the successful candidate’s date of birth has been recorded as 30.09.1990, namely, copy of Aadhar Card, driving licence and Voter ID Card of the appellant-successful candidate. Strong reliance has been placed on the above-listed documents to contend that the date of birth recorded therein is 30.09.1990, which is in accordance with the date of birth reflected in the duplicate birth certificates issued by the E Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.04.2015 and 21.01.2015, respectively. 19.1. The High Court, on perusal of the successful candidate’s Aadhar Card (Ex. P-2 Paper No. A-66/1), Driving License (Ex. P-2 Paper No. A-67/1) and Voter I.D. Card (Ex. P-2 Paper No. A-68/1) F held that the above-mentioned documents are not evidence of date of birth of the successful candidate. It was of the view that the date of birth in the Driving License was corrected subsequently and that the Aadhar Card dated 07.03.2015 and the Voter I.D. Card dated 18.07.2016 were issued on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, which had been held to be null and void. Reliance was placed on a judgment of its Court in Smt. Parvati Kumari and Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home & Ors. (Misc. Bench No. 13419 of 2018) to hold that Aadhar card is a means of identity and not a proof of date of birth. The High Court therefore, held that the above-mentioned documents did not conclusively establish that the successful candidate

p. 473 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

was above twenty-five years of age on the date of filing his nomination papers or on the date of declaration of result of the legislative assembly election in question. 19.2. I am inclined to affirm the findings of the High Court qua this issue also. It is observed so, in light of the fact that the Aadhar card was issued on 07.03.2015, on the basis of the duplicate birth certificate dated 21.01.2015. Having held that the duplicate birth certificate dated 21.01.2015 does not establish the date of birth of successful candidate as 30.09.1990 and that the same was issued under circumstances which are suggestive of manipulation and interpolation of the hospital records, I am of the opinion that the Aadhar card which was issued on 07.03.2015 would also not have any evidentiary value in so far as successful candidates’ date of birth is concerned. Further, the driver’s licence and voter ID of the successful candidate herein, which were also issued on the strength of the duplicate certificates issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Lucknow, and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, on 21.04.2015 and 21.01.2015, respectively, would not serve as proof of the successful candidate’s date of birth, having regard to the observations in the preceding paragraphs of the discussion as to the proof of the date of birth of the successful candidate being 30.09.1990. 19.3. It is observed that all these documents were secured post 2015, at which time the successful candidate started taking active part in politics. I, therefore, am inclined to observe that the said documents were obtained, merely as a means to corroborate the false claims of the successful candidate as to his date of birth and hence are not worthy of consideration as corroborative evidence for the purpose of proving the date of birth of the successful candidate. F

20. I shall now discuss the judgments cited on behalf of the appellant: a) In Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha (supra), on an examination of the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court held that the election petitioner therein had not been able to prove G that the successful candidate therein was below twenty-five years of age on the date of filing of his nomination while the appellant himself also was not able to show that he was at least twenty-five years of age on that date. It was observed that the burden of proving the age was on

p. 474 Copy page pinpoint

A the election petitioner and when the said burden was not discharged, the election petition must fail. The aforesaid dictum is of no assistance to the appellant herein as the position with respect to the factual matrix is at variance. Although, the election petitioner herein contended that the successful candidate B was less than twenty-five years of age and therefore, was ineligible to contest the Assembly election and the election petitioner had the burden of proving the said fact but the successful candidate took up on himself to prove another fact, namely, that he was born on 30.09.1990 and not on 01.01.1993 and therefore, was above twenty-five years of age. Thus, the burden was on the respective parties to prove their respective cases. C On going through the oral and documentary evidence in this case, I find that the appellant herein has failed to prove that he was born on 30.09.1990 in spite of letting in voluminous oral and documentary evidence in view of the discussion and findings arrived at by us. On the other hand, the evidence let in by the respondent-election petitioner, when juxtaposed to D the pertinent admissions let in by the appellant herein, has, in my view, enabled the respondent herein to prove his case before the High Court. The reasoning and conclusion of the High Court in my view is thus, just and proper on the appreciation of the evidence on record in the instant case. E b) In Birad Mal Singhvi Singh vs. Anand Purohit (supra), the question as regards the age of two candidates, namely, Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi was under consideration. The election petitioner therein had examined, inter alia, PW-3 and PW-5, being the Principal, New Government High Secondary School, Jodhpur, since 1984 and Deputy Director (Examination) Board of Secondary F Education, Rajasthan, respectively. They produced the scholar’s register (Ex.-P8) and counterfoil of the Certificate of Board of Secondary Education (Ex.-P9) of Hukmi Chand, respectively, and tabulation record of the Secondary School Examination, 1974, (Ex.-P10). In the documents at Ex.- P9 and P10, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand was G recorded as 13.06.1956. Similarly, insofar as Suraj Prakash Joshi is concerned, Ex.-P11 being the tabulation record of Secondary School Examination of 1977 indicated his date of birth as 11.03.1959 and the counterfoil of certificates and the tabulation form recording the same date of birth on the basis of what was mentioned by the candidate in the examination form were produced. H

p. 475 Copy page pinpoint

KHAN [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

In my view, the aforesaid case would have no relevance insofar as the appellant herein is concerned. No doubt, in the present case also, the fact in issue is with regard to the date of birth of the appellant- successful candidate. While the election petitioner in the instant case stated that it is 01.01.1993 and he has produced documents and let in oral evidence in support of the same, the appellant-successful candidate has stated that his date of birth is 30.09.1990 and in support of this fact, has tried to let in both oral and documentary evidence. While considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, I find that the appellant has failed to prove his case that he was born on 30.09.1990. On the other hand, the evidence on record in the form of oral and documentary admissions produced by the appellant herein when juxtaposed and appreciated with the oral and documentary evidence of the respondent- election petitioner herein indicates that the appellant has failed to prove that he was born on 30.09.1990 while the election petitioner has proved that the appellant herein was born on 01.01.1993. This is because the appellant has not let in evidence to show as to on what basis the birth certificate was issued by the Queen Mary’s Hospital in which the appellant was born, as well as the basis on which the other birth certificate had been issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow. This is because the entries made in the EOT register and MLR have no evidentiary value in the absence of the birth list sent by the hospital to the Municipal Corporation which is the basis for registering a birth in the birth register maintained by it. Unless the hospital wherein the child was born sends the birth list to the Municipal Corporation, the issuance of birth certificate by it would have no probative value. The duplicate birth certificates issued by Queen Mary’s Hospital and the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, are de hors any basis in the instant case. I infer the same on perusal of the documentary and oral evidence discussed above. Therefore, the appellant herein has failed to prove that he was born on 30.09.1990. On the other hand, the respondent-election petitioner has produced the relevant evidence of an undisputed point of time to prove that the appellant herein was born on 01.01.1993. Such inference can be made from Ex. P-1 to P-4 in which the date of birth of the successful candidate was shown as 01.01.1993. Although, voluminous documents were produced by the appellant to contradict the same, the fact remains that Ex R-11 being the copy of the service book of Tazeen Fatima Lecturer Political Science, mother of the appellant-successful candidate it was categorically stated that the appellant herein was eight years of age in H

p. 476 Copy page pinpoint

A the year 2001 as per GIS nomination form submitted by her under her own signature on 26.04.2001. This critical admission made in the service book stating that the appellant herein was eight years of age in 2001 has not been explained nor any attempt has been made to contradict or resile from the same. B The factual matrix in the aforesaid case would not apply vis-à- vis the case at hand as the respondent herein produced certain documents in order to prove that the appellant herein was born on 01.01.1993 and the said fact has been proved by producing the relevant oral and documentary evidence. When the said evidence is appreciated in light of the admissions by the appellant herein, I find that the appellant has failed to prove that he was born on 30.09.1990. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the documentary evidence produced by the respondent-election petitioner has cogent and probative value. This is because the said documents are consistent with the admitted documents of the appellant as well as with the admissions made by the appellant himself to the effect that, it was only in the year 2015 that he found out that the date of birth mentioned in his records was shown to be 01.01.1993 and that he was born in Rampur and based on the Birth Certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, he had continued his affairs including travelling overseas on passports and visas issued on the basis of the Birth Certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rampur, which showed that he was born on 01.01.1993. Further, it was only after the commencement of the proceedings in the election petition and the challenge raised to his date of birth that the appellant made attempts to establish that he was born on 30.09.1990 and hence, took steps to get his educational record, passport and other documents of identity “rectified” so as to make them consistent with his stand as against the election petition. The subsequent alterations made in the documents pertaining to the appellant herein cannot have a bearing on the case since even according to the appellant it was on the basis of the following documents, namely, his Class X Marksheet, his Passport G and Visa that the appellant herein was continuing with his activities and identified himself with this date of birth as 01.01.1993 till the year 2015. Therefore, I am convinced that it was only for the purpose of contesting the assembly elections which were held in the year 2017 and being conscious of the fact that he could not do so as he was disqualified on account of being under aged, he took steps to alter his date of birth to H

p. 477 Copy page pinpoint