Panchayat Election Nullified: Chhattisgarh HC upholds Class X Marksheet for age proof against Aadhar

The Chhattisgarh High Court has solidified the hierarchy of evidence for age determination in election disputes. The High Court ruled that secondary identity documents like Aadhar Cards and Voter IDs cannot override the primary statutory authority of a Matriculation Certificate. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, while adjudicating a writ petition filed under Constitution of India, 1950, upheld the disqualification of a Sarpanch who was found to be underage at the time of nomination despite possessing an updated birth certificate and identity cards reflecting a higher age.

Key Takeaways

Class 10 Certificate for Date of Birth

Matriculation certificates issued by recognized boards serve as primary evidence for age, superseding Aadhar and Voter IDs in legal disputes.

Aadhar Not Conclusive Age Proof

Reiterating settled law, the court held that Aadhar Cards are identification tools and do not constitute conclusive proof of a person's date of birth.

Mandatory Age Qualifications

Strict adherence to the 21-year age floor for Panchayat elections under Article 243-F(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is a non-negotiable statutory and constitutional imperative.

Procedural Fairness in Election Petitions

Non-framing of specific issues by a Tribunal is not fatal if parties are fully aware of the disputed facts and have participated in the trial process.

Hierarchy of Documents for Age Proof

The Court observed that for determining the authenticity of a date of birth, primary reliance must be placed on the Birth Certificate or the Class X Certificate. It noted that the informal nature of the date of birth recorded in voter lists and Aadhar cards renders them unreliable for determining actual age in a judicial inquiry.

Citing the precedent in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( "(2013) 7 SCC 263": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 336), the court emphasized that the matriculation certificate remains the most reliable document under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The bench remarked that the petitioner’s attempt to rely on a birth certificate issued three months after the institution of the election petition raised "serious doubt" regarding its authenticity.

Ratio

A candidate’s eligibility regarding age for contesting Panchayat elections must be established through primary documentary evidence such as the Matriculation Certificate or a contemporaneous Birth Certificate. Secondary identity documents like Aadhar Cards or Voter ID Cards are insufficient to rebut the age recorded in official educational records issued by a statutory Board.

Background

The petitioner, Jasila Thithiyo, was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Krishnanagar in February 2025. Her election was challenged by respondent No. 6 before the Election Tribunal under Section 122 of the CG Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 on the ground that she was only 19 years old at the time of filing her nomination, falling short of the 21-year requirement under Article 243-F(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The Tribunal, relying on the petitioner's Class X marksheet from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education which recorded her birth date as 12.04.2004, declared her election void. The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing that her Aadhar Card and an updated Birth Certificate showed her birth date as 12.04.2002. She further contended that the Tribunal failed to frame specific issues or record oral evidence as required under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

Rejecting these contentions, the Chhattisgarh High Court noted that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities to lead evidence but failed to do so. Following the principles in Kalyan Singh Chouhan Vs. C.P. Joshi ( "(2011) 11 SCC 786": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 182) and Santosh Kumar Nishad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, the Court held that the lack of formal issues did not cause prejudice as the petitioner was fully aware that her age was the central point of controversy.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(227) No. 5343 of 2025
Case Title: Jasila Thithiyo vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Appearances: Mr. A.K. Prasad, Counsel for Petitioner; Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. AG for State; Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Counsel for Respondent No. 6.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 15247