BIRAD MAL SINGHVI versus ANAND PUROHIT

BIRAD MAL SINGHVI versus ANAND PUROHIT

Entries in school registers and certificates regarding age/date of birth do not have sufficient probative value unless corroborated by direct evidence from persons having special knowledge (e.g. the candidate or their parents). In this case, since such corroborative evidence was lacking, the respondent failed to prove that the rejected candidates had attained the required age; and non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act is fatal to nomination. Thus, the rejection of nomination papers was valid, and the appellant's election should not have been set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Birad Mal Singhvi; Respondent: Anand Purohit
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the High Court set aside; election petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nomination Scrutiny, Eligibility of Candidates, Evidentiary Value of Documents, Burden of Proof in Election Petitions
Election Law Nomination Scrutiny Eligibility of Candidates Evidentiary Value of Documents Burden of Proof in Election Petitions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birad Mal Singhvi

Appellant

Anand Purohit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Under Section 116 a of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether nomination papers of Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand, and Suraj Prakash Joshi were validly or improperly rejected by the Returning Officer
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved that Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had attained the required age for contesting the election

Ratio Decidendi

Entries in school registers and certificates regarding age/date of birth do not have sufficient probative value unless corroborated by direct evidence from persons having special knowledge (e.g. the candidate or their parents). In this case, since such corroborative evidence was lacking, the respondent failed to prove that the rejected candidates had attained the required age; and non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act is fatal to nomination. Thus, the rejection of nomination papers was valid, and the appellant's election should not have been set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the High Court set aside; election petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Order of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Elec. Pein. No. 8 of 1985 set aside.
  • Election petition filed by the respondent dismissed.