The Supreme Court ruled that there was no manifest error by the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court has rejected Abdullah Azam Khan's review petition challenging its order upholding Allahabad High Court's verdict disqualifying the former legislator for not having attained the minimum qualifying age on the date of the election.
"We make it clear that what has been observed by this court is with reference to the election petition assailing the election of the returned candidate (Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan) from 34, Suar Assembly Constituency of District Rampur," the top court stated.
The court further stated that the result of the election was declared on March 11, 2017, and the criminal cases, if any, pending in reference to the selfsame subject may be decided on its own merits.
"The review petitions are accordingly dismissed," a bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna said in an order delivered on November 7, 2022.
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no manifest error by the Allahabad High Court, which annulled Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan's son Abdullah Azam Khan's election as Uttar Pradesh MLA, and it did not require any intervention by the top court.
"The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment dated November 7, 2022. We have perused the review petitions as well as the connected papers' support thereof and find no manifest apparent error on the face of the record. In our opinion, no case for review is made out," the court said.
The top court turned down the appeal filed by Abdullah Azam Khan challenging his disqualification as MLA by the Allahabad High Court order on the ground that he was underaged and not qualified to contest the poll in 2017.
The Allahabad High Court had declared the election of Azam Khan's son from the Suar Assembly segment of Rampur district null and void as he was less than 25 years of age. Abdullah Khan was elected as MLA on an SP ticket on March 11, 2017.
"In the instant case, the date of birth of the appellant throughout in his records is January 1, 1993, and only in the year 2015 when the appellant became keen to enter into active politics, the mother of the appellant submitted an application for the first time on January 17, 2015, claiming that the appellant was born on September 30, 1990, and birth certificate may be immediately issued to her and within three days, the birth certificate was issued by the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow on January 21, 2015," the High Court had noted earlier.
"In support thereof, the documentary evidence which the appellant has placed on record obtained from the Queen Mary's Hospital, Lucknow, as a foundation on which the birth certificate has been issued as alleged from the Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, in our considered view, no probative value could have been attached to it," the court had noted.
"The High Court, in our considered view, has examined the documentary and the oral evidence available on record in extenso, we find that no manifest error was committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment, which may call for our interference," it said.
Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, clearly postulates that delayed registration of birth and death is permissible provided the procedure prescribed has been followed after taking orders from the Magistrate and proving the correctness of the date of birth, the court had observed.
Noting that the defence of the appellant is that since his name was already registered in the records of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow, Section 13(3) of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 may not apply, the HC said this submission appeared to be misplaced.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)