In a pivotal ruling, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the disqualification of Jagdish Prasad as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhuriyawas, citing his violation of the two-child norm under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand affirmed the validity of Class 10 marksheets as conclusive evidence of birth dates over conflicting personal records.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an election petition filed by Arvind Kumar, a rival candidate, who alleged that Jagdish Prasad had more than two children after the cutoff date of November 27, 1995, as prescribed under Section 19(l) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act. This provision disqualifies individuals with more than two children born after the specified date from contesting elections for Panchayati Raj institutions.
Jagdish Prasad, elected as Sarpanch with 926 votes against Arvind Kumar’s 704, disclosed the birth dates of his children as follows:
1. Umesh Kumari: July 30, 1988
2. Anita Budaniya: June 7, 1990
3. Rajesh Budaniya: April 5, 1992 (claimed)
4. Mamta Budaniya: April 15, 1994 (claimed)
He declared “zero” children born after November 27, 1995, in his nomination form.
Legal Issues
Arvind Kumar presented evidence suggesting that the actual birth dates of Rajesh and Mamta were July 5, 1996, and July 15, 1998, respectively, based on their Class 10 marksheets issued by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner contended that these records conclusively established the violation of the two-child norm.
Jagdish Prasad countered by presenting alternate birth records, including school admission forms and certificates, which claimed earlier birth dates for both children. His legal team argued that errors in the Class 10 marksheets should not outweigh other documentary evidence, including sworn testimony from school officials.
Court’s Decision
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed the petitioner’s claims, emphasizing that the Class 10 marksheets were valid public documents under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted:
“The matriculation certificate is a public document and credible as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the matriculation certificate is available and there is no other material to prove the correctness of the date of birth, the date mentioned therein is conclusive.”
The court also highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims, noting contradictory statements regarding the birth sequence and dates of his children. Despite having ample opportunity, neither Prasad nor his children sought correction of the dates recorded in the marksheets, which were deemed final.
The judgment aligned with previous Supreme Court rulings, including Parg Bhati v. State of U.P. and Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., which affirmed the precedence of matriculation certificates as proof of birth over private or unofficial records.
The court upheld the election tribunal’s decision disqualifying Jagdish Prasad and dismissed his petition, allowing the Election Commission to proceed with the declaration of results for the by-elections conducted following his removal.
Key Observations
– “When the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, public or official documents maintained in the discharge of official duty carry greater credibility than private documents.”
– “Matriculation certificates, as public documents, hold precedence in determining the date of birth unless successfully challenged.”
