A matriculation certificate prevails over a subsequently updated birth certificate in determining eligibility for Panchayat elections.

The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Krishnanagar after her nomination was accepted and she secured the highest number of votes in the election held on 22 February 2025.

Respondent No. 6 filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging that the petitioner’s actual date of birth was 12 April 2004 and that she had not attained the statutory minimum age of 21 years on the date of filing her nomination.

The petitioner relied on her Aadhaar Card, Voter ID and subsequently issued Birth Certificate, which recorded her date of birth as 12 April 2002.

The Election Tribunal, however, relied principally on her Class X marksheet and other educational records recording 12 April 2004, and declared her election void.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order under Article 226, alleging, inter alia, that no issues were framed and that evidence was not properly recorded under Rules 11 and 12 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

During the writ proceedings, a fresh election was held and respondent No. 6 was elected.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against the final order of the Election Tribunal under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat election laws, notwithstanding the alleged alternative remedy?

2. Whether the Election Tribunal’s failure to frame a specific issue regarding the petitioner’s age and date of birth vitiated the election proceedings?

3. Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or adduce rebuttal evidence?

4. Whether the petitioner’s date of birth was 12 April 2002 or 12 April 2004 for determining compliance with the mandatory minimum age of 21 years under Article 243F of the Constitution?

5. Whether the petitioner’s election as Sarpanch was liable to be declared void for want of the requisite age qualification?

The Court applied Article 243F(1)(a) of the Constitution, under which a person who has attained 21 years cannot be disqualified merely for being below 25, thereby making 21 years the minimum age for contesting Panchayat elections.

It applied Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Election Petition Rules, 1995, including Rules 11 and 12 concerning procedure and trial, Rule 16 concerning application of the Evidence Act, and Rule 25, which gives finality to the decision of the Specified Officer.

Relying on Cheti Bai Yadav v. Smt. Bhupeshwari Sahu, the Court held that an Article 226/227 petition is maintainable against the final order of the Election Tribunal.

On framing of issues, it relied on Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and Santosh Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh, which establish that non-framing of issues is not fatal where the parties fully understood the controversy and led evidence on it.

For determination of age, the Court relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, P. Yuvaprakash v. State, Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, Jabar Singh v. Dinesh and Saroj v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co., holding that a matriculation or equivalent educational certificate, birth certificate and official school records have greater evidentiary value than Aadhaar or Voter ID, and that Aadhaar is not conclusive proof of date of birth.

The Court first held that the writ petition was maintainable because Rule 25 attached finality to the Tribunal’s decision and, following Cheti Bai Yadav, no effective statutory appeal or revision was available.

Although Rules 11 and 12 contemplate framing of issues, the Court held that the only real controversy was the petitioner’s date of birth and eligibility, of which both parties had full knowledge; therefore, the absence of a formally framed issue did not cause prejudice or amount to a mistrial.

The allegation that the petitioner had been denied an opportunity to lead evidence was rejected because the order sheets showed repeated adjournments and opportunities to file objections, cross-examine the election petitioner and adduce rebuttal evidence, which the petitioner failed to utilise.

On the substantive issue, the Court treated the Class X marksheet and consistent school records recording 12 April 2004 as reliable evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

The Birth Certificate recording 12 April 2002 was discounted because it had been updated and issued only on 5 July 2025, after institution of the election petition, and was not proved through evidence.

Aadhaar and Voter ID were regarded as secondary identity documents incapable of overriding the educational records.

Consequently, the petitioner had not completed 21 years on the date of nomination and was constitutionally ineligible to contest.

It held that the writ petition was maintainable, but that the absence of formally framed issues was not fatal, the petitioner had received adequate opportunities to lead evidence, and her reliable date of birth was 12 April 2004.

Since she had not attained 21 years on the date of filing her nomination, she lacked the requisite constitutional qualification under Article 243F and her election as Sarpanch was void.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Election Tribunal’s order declaring her election null and void was affirmed.