Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hadman Singh vs Risal Kanwar on 12 March, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

    [2025:RJ-JD:10679]
                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

                                        AT JODHPUR

                        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4133/2025

     Hadman Singh S/o Bagh Singh, aged about 59 years, R/o Ward
     No.5, Rajasar Bhatiyan, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.
                                                          ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
     Risal Kanwar W/o Govind Singh, R/o Ward No.8, Rajasar
     Bhatiyan, Tehsil Chhatargarh, District Bikaner.
                                                       ----Respondent


     For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Bheru Lal Jat.
                                         Mr. Sanjeev Beniwal.
     For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. NR Budania.


                      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

Reportable

Reserved on 21/02/2025 Pronounced on 12/03/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order

dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-8) passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge No.1 in CIS No. CMC (NC)/42/2020, whereby the Election

Petition (Annex-1) filed by the respondent was allowed and the

election of petitioner on the post of Sarpanch on 28.09.2020 was

declared as void under Section 19(l) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

Act, 1994. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is

reproduced hereunder:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ of mandamus may kindly be allowed by an order, writ or direction:-

(i) The order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-8) passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Bikaner in C.I.S. No. CMC (NC)/42/2020 may kindly be quashed and set aside and Election Petition filed by respondent may be dismissed.

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (2 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

(ii) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent

filed an Election Petition under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'the

Election Rules, 1994') read with Section 43 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act')

challenging the election of the petitioner. It was averred by the

respondent in the Election Petition (Annex-1) that the petitioner

has six children and two of them are born after the cut-off date

i.e., 27.11.1995 hence, he was not qualified to contest the

election of Sarpanch. The petitioner, in his reply to Election

Petition, denied the averments made therein. On the basis of

pleadings of both the parties the learned Trial Court framed as

many as four issues which are reproduced hereunder:

"1. vk;k xzke iapkr jktklj HkkfV;ku ds ljiap in gsrq dh x;h fuokZpu dh ?kks'k.kk djokrs gq, ljiap in dk pquko fujLr djkus dh izkfFkZuh vf/kdkjh gS\

2. vk;k izkfFkZuh dh ;kfpdk fe;kn ckgj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\

3. vk;k izkfFkZuh }kjk fjVfuZax vf/kdkjh dks i{kdkj ugha cuk, tkus ds vk/kkj ij izkfFkhZuh dh ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

4. vk;k izkfFkhZuh dh pquko ;kfpdk izfrHkwfr jkf'k tek ds vHkko esa [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\

5. vuqrks"k\"

3. The Election Petitioner, now respondent before this Court

hereinafter referred as "respondent/EP", examined three witness

(PW1 to PW3) and produced fifteen documentary evidences

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (3 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

(Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 15). On the other hand, the Returning

Candidate, now Petitioner before this Court hereinafter referred as

"petitioner/RC" examined two witness (DW1 and DW2) and

produced four documentary evidences (Exhibit A1A to Exhibit-

A4A).

4. After hearing both the parties and on the basis of material

available on record the learned Trial Court allowed the Election

Petition (Annex-1) vide order dated 29.01.2025 (Annex-8) and

declared the election of the petitioner as void. Aggrieved by the

same the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned

Trial Court ought to have dismissed the Election Petition at the

outset, as the same was not verified, as mandated under Rule 82

of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 read with

Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He also

submitted while drawing attention of this Court to the Election

Petition (Annex-1) that the respondent has stated specifically as to

which facts she verifies of her own knowledge and which facts she

verifies upon information received and believed to be true by her.

He also submits that the respondent has not verified the

documents attached with the Election Petition (Annex-1). Learned

counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on various judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Ramnarayan Yadav v.

Garib Yadav [1971 0 Supreme (Pat) 93 (para 15,16,19)], [Azizul

Husnain v. G. Mishra 1972 0 Supreme(Pat) 10 (para 6)],

[Saratchandra Mandal v. Phani Bhusan Singh 1973 0 Supreme

(Pat) 175 (para 20)] and [Chakali Manikanta v. The Hon'ble

Election Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (4 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

District 2022 0 Supreme(AP) 354 (para 28,30,31)], [Sri.

Basavaraj v. Sir. Hire Doddonagouda and Ors. 2002 0 Supreme

(Kar) 542 (para 6) for these submissions.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

respondent has also not deposited the requisite sum of Rs.500/-

as mandated under Rule 81 (2) of the Election Rules, 1994 and

the copy of Challan (Exhibit 1) pertains to a different Election

Petition. He also submits that the respondent has also failed to

supply a copy of the petition to District Election Officer

(Panchayats) concerned as mandated under Rule 81 (3) of the

Election Rules, 1994, for which reliance has been placed on Vijay

Somani v. Ajay Singh : 2001 0 Supreme(P&H) 876 (para 28).

5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned

Trial Court has erred in relying upon Ration Cards for proof of age

of Usman Kanwar and Pinky (daughters of Hadman Singh) as the

same are not reliable. He also submits that Ration Card as well as

Jan Aadhaar card have been forged by the respondent hence, they

cannot be relied upon to ascertain the age of Usman Kanwar as

well as Pinky.

5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

burden to prove issue no.1 was on the respondent (Election

Petitioner) hence, the learned Trial Court has erred in drawing

adverse inference against the petitioner with respect to the age of

Usman Kanwar D/o Hadman Singh as mentioned in Jan Aadhaar

Card receipt. He also submits that the respondent has failed to

examine the person, who had issued Jan Aadhaar Card receipt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on [Brij

Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Naraian Sinha 1965 0 AIR (SC) 282

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (5 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

(paras 18,25 & 29)] to substantiate the submissions pertaining to

the failure of examining the public servant making an entry in a

document and further admissibility of documents in such case;

Respondent has also not proved as to who has written this age on

the Ration Card of petitioner, for which petitioner has placed

reliance on [Vishnu @ Undrya v State of Maharashtra [2006 0 AIR

(SC) 508 (para 24)], [Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand 2009 0

AIR (SC) 314 (para 22 and 23)], Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand

also provides significant judicial interpretation regarding the

evidentiary value assigned to documents under Section 35 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which governs the admissibility and

probative value of entries in public records made in performance

of official duties. Further to establish evidentiary value of

documents counsel for the petitioner has relied upon [Nadessin

alias Gobalou v Bharathy Mills 1964 0 Supreme (Mad) 87],

[Manakchand @ Mani v. State of Haryana (2023) 14 SCR 74 (para

9)].

5.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is a settled

legal position that an Election Petition must clearly and

unambiguously set out all the material facts, which the Election

Petitioner is to rely upon during the trial, and it must reveal a

clear and complete picture of the circumstances and should

disclose a definite cause of action and in the absence of above an

Election Petition can be summarily dismissed for which the

petitioner has relied upon the judgment of [M. Chandra v. M

Thangamuthu, 2010 9 SCC 712 (para 52)].

5.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Trial Court has erred in drawing adverse inference against the

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (6 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

petitioner under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in

lieu of non-submission of original Jan Aadhaar Card. Petitioner has

relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Union of

India v. Ibrahim Uddin 2012 0 Supreme (SC) 465 (paras 15,16

and 17)].

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that in the present case no allegation regarding corrupt practices

were made by the respondent in Election Petition (Annex-1)

hence, merely on the ground of procedural/technical errors an

Election Petition could not be dismissed. He placed reliance on the

judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in [Nenu

Ram Vs. Amara Ram 2016 0 Supreme (Raj) 619 (Para 5)]

6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the

substantial question for consideration before this Court is whether

the petitioner had sired a third child after the cut-off date i.e.,

27.11.1995. He also submitted that the date of birth of Usman

Kanwar (daughter of the petitioner) is 01.01.2002 as mentioned in

receipt of Jan Aadhaar card (Exhibit 10), which cannot be

disbelieved for the reason that the same is a public document. He

also submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed

that the birth certificate of Usman Kanwar (Exhibit A1A), wherein

her date of birth is mentioned as 01.02.1994, cannot be believed

as the same was issued on 17.09.2020 i.e., just 3 days before the

date of scrutiny of nomination of candidates. He also submits that

the petitioner failed to submit the original Jan Aadhaar Card,

hence the learned Trial Court has rightly taken adverse inference

against the petitioner under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (7 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

petitioner himself admitted before the learned Trial Court that

Ration Cards (Exhibits 14 and 15) belong to him hence, he cannot

dispute the date of birth written on the Ration Cards and thus, the

contention raised by the petitioner in this regard does not have

any force. Reliance has been placed on Movni Bai v. Nazri Bai and

Ors.: [2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1750 Para 5, 9].

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record as well as the judgments cited at Bar.

8. Among the issues framed, the Election Petitioner bears the

burden of proving that whether Hadman Singh, petitioner herein,

gave birth to a child resulting in a total of more than two children

after the cut-off date of 27.11.1995, which can make him

ineligible to contest the election?

9. The learned Trial Court has rightly concluded that the issue

at hand is one which requires analysis and scrutiny of the exhibits.

The learned Trial Court observed that acknowledgment slip as

obtained under Jan Aadhaar Yojana, was exhibited by Election

Petitioner and if the respondent therein, had any objection to it,

he could have produced/exhibited the original of Jan Aadhaar

card, which in the view of the learned Trial Court being an

essential document, was obvious for the petitioner herein, to be in

his possession and partially relying on which the learned Trial

Court has taken the view that Usman Kanwar, was younger to

Mahendra Singh as Usman Kanwar's date of birth is 01.01.2002 as

mentioned in the Jan Aadhaar card. The original Jan Aadhaar Card

was not produced by the respondent therein, therefore, the

learned Trial Court has drawn adverse inference under Section 114

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the observation that if

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (8 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

original was produced before the Court it would have been

favorable to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court has observed as

under:

(i). Jan Aadhaar card was not the only document, which helped

it to come to the above conclusion regarding the age of Usman

Kanwar as apart from the Jan Aadhaar card receipt (Exhibit 10),

Ration Card's description states Mahendra Singh's age as 25 years

and Usman Kanwar's age as 24 years, which belonged to Hadman

Singh. Also, in Exhibit 14, Hadman Singh's Ration Card,

Mahendra's age is mentioned as 8 years, Pinky's age is mentioned

as 6 years and Usman's age as 2 years which also shows that

Usman and Pinky were born after Mahendra, and thereafter in

Exhibit 15 Mahendra's age is shown as 22 years, Usman's age as

20 years which concludes that Usman is younger than Mahendra.

Petitioner had himself stated the date of birth of Mahendra Singh

as 15.09.1995 and that he has no child born after 27.11.1995,

which was held as not true by the learned Trial Court. Meanwhile

Petitioner has exhibited birth certificate of Usman Kanwar (Exhibit

A1A) in which the date of birth of Usman Kanwar is mentioned as

01.02.1994, Pinky's aadhaar card (Exhibit A2A) in which her date

of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1992, and Pinky's birth certificate

as Exhibit (A3A) in which her date of birth is mentioned as

01.01.1992, which was discarded by the learned Trial Court on

the grounds of suspicion as Exhibit A1A bears issuing date

17.09.2020 which is just 3 days before scrutiny of nomination of

candidates, and on the primal assumption that one who gets a

birth certificate issued after decades, it is on the basis of affidavit,

and Pinky's birth certificate Exhibit A3A was ruled out on the basis

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (9 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

that it's registration date bears some interference in form of some

overwriting/correction. The learned Trial Court observed that the

burden of proof to disprove the documents as presented by

Election Petitioner showing Usman to be younger than Mahendra

was on returning candidate, due to which the documents exhibited

by Election Petitioner appeared to be true to the learned Trial

Court.

(ii). Placing reliance on the testimonies of Hadman Singh learned

Trial Court came to the conclusion that respondent accepts Jan

Aadhaar card receipt, Ration Card description, his son Kalu Singh's

Ration Card, his son Jethu Singh's Ration Card and other Ration

Card as his own, but the dates mentioned therein as incorrect and

further held that he has not made any effort to correct the same

discrepancies in the aforementioned documents, which in turn, is

sufficient to accept that Usman is indeed younger than Mahendra

and Usman is born after 27.11.1995, and the birth certificate of

Usman Kanwar is made with the sole object to have eligibility to

contest the election and the learned Trial Court believed it to be

true as Hadman Singh himself stated that all of his children were

born at home, thereby birth certificate could have been made on

the basis of the affidavit presented by him, same was concluded

for Aadhaar card, as Aadhaar card can be made on basis of birth

certificate and Aadhaar card can be amended at any time.

Furthermore, after carefully reviewing testimonies of PW1, PW2

and PW3 the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the

respondent concealed the very fact i.e. the birth of third child

namely Usman Kanwar in order to contest the election. In light of

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (10 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

above the learned Trial Court has decided the first issue in favour

of respondent and against the petitioner.

10. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has concluded

that petitioner/RC accepts Jan Aadhaar card receipt, Ration Card

description, his son Kalu Singh's Ration Card, his son Jethu Singh's

Ration Card and other Ration Card as his own. This Court has

observed that the present petitioner has clearly stated that, " esjk

tuk/kkj dkMZ gS ;k ugha eq>s irk ugha] " "izn'kZ 14] 15 jk'ku dkMZ esjs gSa ;k ugha eq>s irk

ugha". The petitioner herein is merely stating that he is not aware

whether he has Janaadhaar or not, and whether Ration Cards

(Exhibits 14 and 15) are his or not, he has merely stated that said

Ration Cards bears the name of his family members. Thus, the

conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that petitioner accepts

that he owns the alleged Janaadhaar (Exhibit 10) and Ration

Cards (Exhibit 14 and 15), is not acceptable. Moreover, the

learned Trial Court has relied upon the judgment of Movni Bai v.

Nazri Bai and ors. [2002 0 Supreme (Raj) 1750 Para(s) 5 and 9]

wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench,

observed that "petitioner's case was that she delivered third child

on 19.09.1995, at her own house, which was delivered by one

Nurse Tara. However, before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner

therein, examined herself only and Nurse Tara was not examined.

A certificate issued by Nurse Tara was produced before learned

Trial Court on the date of pronouncement of the judgment on

30.7.2002. Such a certificate even though may have been filed at

the time of pronouncement of the judgment, will have no

relevance unless and until it has some evidentiary value."

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (11 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

11. In Movni Bai v. Nazri Bai and ors. (supra), the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, observed that "9. Annx. 5, a

certificate dated 29.1.2000, has no evidentiary value because

information of the girl child born to petitioner was given to Birth &

Death Registration office on 29.1.2000, that too by some Nahar

Singh, not related to the petitioner and upon order of the SDM"

The learned Trial Court erred while observing that the facts of

Movni Bai v. Nazri Bai and ors. (supra) as the same were not-

applicable to the case in hand for the reason that in the present

case the Election Petitioner has not taken an objection that upon

information given by a stranger to the Directorate of Economics

and Statistics, the birth certificate was issued. The birth certificate

dated 17.09.2020 (Annexure A1A) is, therefore, in present

circumstances could be taken as having evidentiary value.

12. Furthermore, learned Trial Court has disregarded the

evidentiary value of Exhibit A1A (produced by petitioner), the birth

certificate of Usman Kanwar, which was issued by Registrar,

Rajasar Bhatiya, Pugal, Bikaner under the heads of Government of

Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics and Statistics authorized duly

under Section 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,

1969 and Rule 8/13 of the Rajasthan Registration of Births and

Death Rules, 2000. The relevant Sections of the Registration of

Births and Deaths Act, 1969 are reproduced hereinunder:-

Section 12 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969

"12. Extracts of registration entries to be given to informant.--The Registrar shall, as soon as the registration of a birth or death has been completed, give, free of charge, to the person who gives information under Section 8 or Section 9 and extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death."

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (12 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

Section 17 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969

"17. Search of births and deaths register.--(1) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the State Government, including rules relating to the payment of fees and postal charges, any person may--

(a) cause a search to be made by the Registrar for any entry in a register of births and deaths; and

(b) obtain an extract from such register relating to any birth or death:

Provided that no extract relating to any death, issued to any person, shall disclose the particulars regarding the cause of death as entered in the register.

(2) All extracts given under this Section shall be certified by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government to give such extracts as provided in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the birth or death to which the entry relates."

12.1. Section 17(2) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act,

1969 is crystal clear in apprising the very fact that extracts under

this Section shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of

proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. The learned

Trial Court on the grounds that the birth certificate Exhibit A1A

(produced by RC) was issued 3 days ago disregarded the very

birth certificate which in the opinion of this Court is improper as

the provision very clearly specifies that birth certificates issued

under this Section shall be admissible in evidence unless proved

otherwise.

13. This Court finds that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Birad

Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [1988 0 Supreme (SC) 471] held

that "Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that

entry in any public, official book, register, record stating a fact in

issue or relevant fact and made by a public servant in the

discharge of his official duty specially enjoined by the law of the

country is itself the relevant fact. To render a document admissible

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (13 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied firstly, entry

that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book,

issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public

servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in

performance of a duty specially enjoined by law."

14. It is important to note that in the present case the birth

certificate (Exhibit A1A) in question, is a public document, it is an

entry stating a relevant fact in issue i.e. date of birth of daughter

(Usman Kanwar) of the petitioner/RC that she is born on

01.02.1994 which is one and a half year before the cut-off date

(27.11.1995), thirdly the certificate has been made by a public

servant in discharge of his official duty. Since the birth certificate

Exhibit A1A (produced by petitioner/RC) passes all the three

conditions as laid down under Birad Mal Singhvi (supra) a

combined reading of the legal precedent and statutory provisions

makes it clear that Exhibit A1A birth certificate dated 17.09.2020,

was in fact admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

the learned Trial Court should have admitted and relied on it in

evidence for the purposes of determining and further proving the

date of birth of Usman Kanwar D/o Hadman Singh.

15. However, the birth certificate was not the only document due

to which the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion and

allowed the Election Petition. The learned Trial Court heavily relied

upon the Ration Cards and Jan Aadhaar acknowledgement slip in

determining the age and issue at hand that whether the candidate

had sired a 3rd child after 27.11.1995.

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (14 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

15.1. This Court finds that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food

and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public

Distribution) vide its order dated 20.03.2015 in Gazette of India:

Extraordinary [Part II-SEC 3(i)] "G.S.R. 213(E).--Whereas the

Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and

expedient so to do for maintaining supplies and securing

availability and distribution of essential commodity, namely,

foodgrains under the Targeted Public Distribution System;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955)

and in supersession of the Public Distribution System (Control)

Order, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted to be done

before such supersession and save as otherwise provided

hereunder, the Central Government hereby makes the following

Order, namely: -

1. Short title, and commencement.--(1) This Order may be called the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control)Order, 2015."

Under the aforementioned order under Section 4(6) of the order has specifically stated that Ration Card shall not be used as a document of identity or proof of residence.

Rule 4(6) of the said order is reproduced below:-

'4. Ration Cards.--(1) The State Government shall issue Ration Cards to the eligible households as mentioned in the final list specified under sub-clause (12) of clause 3:

(2) to (5) ....

(6) Ration Card shall not be used as a document of identity or proof of residence.

(7) to (20) ...."

15.2. Thus, taking into consideration the order dated 20.03.2015

in Gazette of India: Extraordinary [Part II-SEC 3(1)] "G.S.R. 213

(E)" when the Ration Card cannot be used as a document of

identity or proof of residence, therefore, the learned trial Court

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (15 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

ought not to have relied upon the Ration Card for determining the

age of Usman Kanwar.

15.3. Moreover, this Court also takes into consideration the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saroj

& Ors. V. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. &Ors.: 2024 INSC 816,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"We find that the Unique Identification Authority of India, by way of its Circular No.08 of 2023, has stated, in reference to an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 20th December 2018, that an Aadhar Card, while can be used to establish identity, it is not per se proof of date of birth. This office memorandum dated 20th December, 2018 was taken note of by a learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Unique Identification Authority of India And Ors. [Criminal Writ Petition no. 3002 of 2002] in its order dated 28th July, 2023. The Circular is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

F.No.HQ-13065/1/2022-AUTH-II HQ/8075 Unique Identification Authority of India (Authentication and Verification Division)

UIDAI Headquarter Bangla Sahib Road, Behind Kali Mandir Gole Market, New Delhi-110 001 Dated 22.12.2023

Subject: Accepting Aadhar as a proof of Date of Birth (DoB) - regarding.

It has been observed that AUAs/KUAs are considering and accepting Aadhar card /e-Aadhaar as one of the acceptable documents for proof of Date of Birth (DoB).

2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that, Aadhaar is a unique 12-digit ID issued to a resident after he/she undergoes the enrolment process by submitting his/her demographic and biometric information. Once a resident is assigned an Aadhaar number, it can be used to authenticate the resident through various modes as prescribed under Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Regulations framed there under.

3. At the time of enrolment/updation, UIDAI records DoB as claimed by the resident, on the basis of the documents submitted by them, as specified under the list of supporting documents for Aadhaar enrolment, provided on the UIDAI website

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (16 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

(https://uidai.gov.in/images/commdoc/26 JAN 2023 Aadhar List of documents English.pdf).Further, it is to be noted that Regulations 10(4) and 19A of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and UPDATE) Regulations, 2016, mention that verification of the enrolment and update data shall be performed as provided in Schedule III.

4. In this regard, attention is drawn towards Office Memorandum dated 2-0.12.2018 issued by MeitY through UIDAI, where it has been stated that "An Aadhaar number can be used for establishing identity of an individual subject to authentication and thereby, per se its not a proof of date of birth" (copy enclosed).

5. This aspect of the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been reiterated/highlighted/stressed upon by different High Courts in recent judgments. The most recent one is given by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of State of Maharashtra V/S Unique Identification Authority of India & Ors. dated 28.07.2023 (copy enclosed).

6. In view of the above, it is required that use of Aadhaar, as a proof of DoB needs to be deleted from the list of acceptable documents.

7. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.

Encl: As above.

9.7 Judicial notice has also been taken of the circular above."

15.4. Also, it is pertinent to note that on the official website of

Rajasthan Jan Aadhaar Authority, Government of Rajasthan

(https://janaadhaar.rajasthan.gov.in/content/raj/janaadhaar/en/fa

qs1.html) in its Jan Aadhaar enrollment's frequently asked

question ('FAQ') section deals with certain questions & answers &

the question & answer relevant in the present case is reproduced

herein as under:

"Q4. Is Aadhaar enrolment necessary for Jan Aadhaar Enrollment? Answer - Yes, since the main purpose of creation of the Jan Aadhaar family ID is to identify all the authentic members of the resident families for which Aadhaar authentication is required through biometric or OTP of all the resident members above 5 years of age"

15.5. Furthermore, the preamble of the Rajasthan Jan-Aadhaar

Authority Act, 2020 (Act no.3 of 2020) provides for the objective

of the Act, which is reproduced herein as under:

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (17 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

"THE RAJASTHAN JAN-AADHAAR AUTHORITY ACT, 2020 (Act No. 3 of 2020) (Received the assent of the Governor on the 27th day of February, 2020) An Act to provide for, as a measure for good governance, efficient, transparent and targeted delivery of public welfare benefits and services to the individual residing in the State of Rajasthan, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of the State, using Jan-Aadhaar ID as identifier; constitution of Rajasthan Jan-Aadhaar Authority and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

15.6. Thus, taking into consideration UIDAI Circular No.08 of

2023 F.No.HQ-13065/1/2022 AUTH-II HQ/8075, issued by

Unique Identification Authority of India (Authentication and

Verification Division) dated 22.12.2023, the Rajasthan Jan

Aadhar Authority Act, 2020 and the FAQs mentioned in the

Jan Aadhaar website it is reflected that the learned Trial Court

has erred in relying upon the Jan Aadhar Card for the

purpose of determining date of birth of Usman Kanwar as

when the Aadhar Card itself cannot be used as a poof of date

of birth then, the Jan Aadhar Card, which is issued on the

basis of the Aadhar Card, cannot be considered as a

conclusive proof for determining the date of birth.

15.7. This Court is of the view that learned Trial Court has erred

in discarding the birth certificate solely on the ground that it was

issued 3 days before scrutiny of nomination of candidates

overlooking the fact that the birth certificate was duly issued as

per Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969

according to which all extracts given under this section, certified

by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State

Government, shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of

proving the birth or death to which the entry relates. The birth

[2025:RJ-JD:10679] (18 of 18) [CW-4133/2025]

certificate in question (Exhibit A1A) was duly issued under Section

17 of the Act of 1969 by a competent authority discharging public

duty, the document in question is a public document, indicating a

fact which is the date of birth of Usman Kanwar as 01.02.1994.