Case Background
The case arises out of the municipal elections to the Patna Municipal Corporation held in 2017.
The State Election Commission issued a notification for the election. The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste woman, filed her nomination from Ward No. 19 for the post of Ward Councillor.
In the 2017 voter list for Ward No. 19, her name appeared at serial number 3213. Her age was shown as 21 years and, on that basis, she was issued a voter identity card bearing number AFS3511094.
At the time of filing nomination, no one objected to her age or eligibility. On scrutiny, her nomination papers were found in order. She contested the election from Territorial Constituency No. 19 and was declared the returned (winning) candidate.
After the results, respondent no. 10 filed an election petition before the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna. She alleged that the petitioner had not yet completed 21 years when she filed her nomination, and therefore her election was contrary to the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
On this complaint, Case No. 70 of 2017 was initiated before the State Election Commission. The petitioner replied that she was 21 years old on the date of nomination and thus fully qualified. She attached several documents to support her date of birth: birth certificate, school identity card, voter ID card, Aadhaar card, PAN card and other papers.
Despite this, the State Election Commissioner, by order dated 12.04.2018, declared the petitioner disqualified from the post of Ward Councillor of Ward No. 19 under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, on the ground that she was below 21 years on the nomination date. That order was challenged before the Patna High Court in this writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The key question before the Patna High Court was whether the State Election Commission was justified in disqualifying the elected councillor only on the basis of the date of birth recorded in her matriculation certificate, without proper evidence.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Commission had completely ignored several crucial documents showing her date of birth as 05.05.1995, which would make her 21 years old at the time of nomination. These documents included:
- Birth certificate issued by the Department of Planning and Development (Directorate of Economics and Statistics)
- Admission register of Ramchandra Vishwakarma High School, Achhua, Patna
- School identity card
- Voter identity card
- Aadhaar card
- PAN card
- Voter list of Ward No. 19
Counsel stressed that the Commission had relied only on the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, which mentioned 05.05.1998. He submitted that the burden to prove that the returned candidate was underage lay on the complainant (respondent no. 10). Since she did not produce any cogent evidence or witnesses, the election could not be set aside.
He further submitted that unless there was evidence to show on whose information the School Examination Board recorded the date of birth, the entry in the matriculation certificate had little evidentiary value. For this, he relied on Supreme Court judgments in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, and an unreported Patna High Court decision in Kamta Kumari v. State of Bihar.
On the other side, counsel for the State Election Commission argued that persons below 21 years are clearly disqualified from contesting municipal elections under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. He pointed out that the petitioner had applied on 25.07.2017 through her school headmaster for correction of her date of birth in the Board’s record from 05.05.1998 to 05.05.1995. The Bihar School Examination Board rejected this request, stating that there was no error on its part and, as per its record, her date of birth remained 05.05.1998.
On that basis, the Commission concluded that the petitioner was under 21 years on the nomination date and disqualified her. The State supported this stand.
Counsel for respondent no. 10 added that in her nomination, the petitioner had declared her date of birth as 05.05.1995 and stated that she was “Sakshar” (literate). She had sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, supporting her age and education. Respondent no. 10 claimed that the petitioner had appeared in the 2016 Secondary School Examination with specific roll and registration numbers and had failed, but did not submit her marksheet with the nomination papers.
According to respondent no. 10, the Bihar School Examination Board’s records, including the marksheet, showed the petitioner’s date of birth as 05.05.1998. She alleged that the petitioner filed a false affidavit and suppressed her marksheet to hide that she was under 21 years. She therefore asked for cancellation of the petitioner’s result and for herself, as the next candidate, to be declared elected.
The Court noted the enquiry steps taken by the authorities. On the complaint, an enquiry was ordered by the District Returning Officer-cum-Collector, Patna, who asked the Returning Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna to investigate. After hearing the parties, the Returning Officer found the allegations of respondent no. 10 to be true and sent his report to the Collector, who forwarded it to the State Election Commission.
The Commission then sought a report from the Bihar School Examination Board. The Additional Secretary of the Board, by letter dated 09.04.2018, reported that the petitioner’s application for changing her date of birth from 05.05.1998 to 05.05.1995 had been rejected. The Board stated that there was no fault on its part and that the petitioner’s documents with the Board (registration, marksheet, certificate) consistently showed 05.05.1998.
The Patna High Court carefully examined Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. Section 18(1) lists various disqualifications for being elected or continuing as a member of a municipality, including the age requirement that a person must have attained 21 years. Section 18(2) gives power to the State Election Commission to decide questions of disqualification, whether arising before or after election, either on complaint or even suo motu, after giving adequate hearing.
The Court accepted that the State Election Commission had jurisdiction under Section 18(2) to examine whether the petitioner was disqualified for not having attained 21 years on the date of nomination.
However, the Court found serious fault with how the Commission had exercised that power. It observed that the Commission had disqualified the petitioner “merely on the basis” of the date of birth in the matriculation certificate, ignoring all other documents filed by her.
The Court also noted that the Bihar School Examination Board itself had acknowledged that the petitioner and her headmaster had applied for correction of the date of birth, claiming that 05.05.1995 was correct and 05.05.1998 was wrong. The application was rejected mainly on the grounds that it was not filed within time and that the petitioner had already indicated 05.05.1995 elsewhere (such as the nomination), which the Board treated as “disrespect” to its certificate.
Crucially, the Board’s verification letter did not state that the Board had independently checked who gave the original date of birth, or that the parents or anyone with special knowledge had confirmed 05.05.1998. There was no evidence about how and on whose information that date was first entered.
The Court then relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that entries in school registers or Board records about date of birth are not conclusive unless supported by evidence from persons who gave the information or otherwise had special knowledge of the date of birth. Merely proving the documents does not prove that the contents are true.
The Supreme Court had further held that in an election dispute, the burden to prove that a candidate was underage lies on the person challenging the election. Unless that person brings cogent, reliable evidence, the election cannot be set aside.
The Patna High Court applied this reasoning. It held that, in the present case, there was no evidence on record to show that the date of birth 05.05.1998 in the Board record was based on information from the petitioner’s parents or any person with special knowledge. No official from the Board, no parent, and not even respondent no. 10 herself stepped into the witness box before the State Election Commission to prove the correctness of the Board’s entry.
On the other hand, there was material to show that a different date of birth (05.05.1995) was recorded in several independent documents, including the school admission register and government-issued documents, and that the headmaster had supported the correction request.
Referring also to Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, the Court reiterated that the burden of proving that the returned candidate was below the required age lies on the election petitioner. If that burden is not discharged, the election cannot be set aside.
The Court concluded that the entire approach of the State Election Commission was “wholly misconceived”. It had ignored a series of documents supporting the petitioner’s case and had treated the Board’s verification report as decisive without any supporting oral evidence.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court held that the complainant (respondent no. 10) had failed to prove that the petitioner was under 21 years on the date of nomination. Therefore, the petitioner could not be disqualified after being elected.
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Case No. 70 of 2017 by respondent no. 3 (State Election Commissioner) under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. The writ petition was allowed, and the normal legal consequences of quashing the disqualification order were left to follow.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for elected representatives and aspiring candidates in municipal elections across Bihar.
First, it confirms that the State Election Commission can indeed look into questions of disqualification, including age, even after a candidate has been elected. However, it must follow proper procedure and base its decision on solid evidence, not just on a single record.
Second, the judgment protects elected representatives from being removed on the basis of doubtful or untested entries in school or Board records. If someone challenges an election on the ground of age, they must bring clear proof, including witnesses who can explain how the date of birth was recorded.
Third, the judgment reassures voters that the mandate they give through the ballot box cannot be lightly overturned. A winning candidate’s election will not be cancelled unless the challenger fully proves the disqualification with reliable evidence.
Finally, this ruling guides authorities like Election Commissions and education boards. When they deal with disputes over date of birth, they must consider all available documents and evidence, not just the matriculation certificate, and they must give reasons if they reject other material.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Could the State Election Commission disqualify the elected councillor solely on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, treating her as under 21 on the nomination date?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that while the Commission had jurisdiction under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, it could not lawfully disqualify her without cogent evidence proving that she was underage. Reliance only on the Board’s record, without examining witnesses or considering other documents, was misconceived. - Issue: Who bore the burden of proving that the councillor had not attained 21 years of age at the time of nomination?
Answer: The Court held that the burden lay on the complainant (respondent no. 10), who challenged the election. As she did not lead any cogent evidence or even examine herself, the burden was not discharged and the election could not be set aside. - Issue: What is the evidentiary value of entries regarding date of birth in school and Board records in such election disputes?
Answer: Following the Supreme Court in Birad Mal Singhvi and Brij Mohan Singh, the Court held that such entries are not conclusive and have no probative value unless it is proved on whose information they were made. Mere production of the documents is not enough; there must be evidence from persons with special knowledge of the date of birth.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, (1988) Supp. 2 SCR 1
- Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, 1965 (3) SCR 861
- Kamta Kumari v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 1632 of 2013 (Patna High Court, unreported)
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7884 of 2018
Case Title: Sharda Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 544
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: 05.04.2019
Respondents: State of Bihar; State Election Commission, Bihar; State Election Commissioner, Bihar; District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna; Returning Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation; Bihar School Examination Board, Patna; Headmaster, Ramchandra Vishwakarma High School, Achhua, Patna; Patna Municipal Corporation and its Chief Executive Officer; Smt. Soma Choudhary (Respondent No. 10).
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Mrs. Anu Priyadarshini
- For the State: Mr. Ram Subhas Singh, AC to AAG 7
- For the Election Commission: Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh
- For respondent no. 10: Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Mrs. Anita Kumari
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging an order of disqualification passed by the State Election Commissioner under Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007.
Link to Judgment (official website): Click here to access the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
