Shivangi Prakash-
A municipal councilor from Maharashtra attempted to get over the disqualification for violating the two-child rule by showing the third child as belonging to someone else.
However, the attempt to ‘disown’ the third child turned out to be unsuccessful, as the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument. Earlier, the Bombay High Court had also rejected the said defense.
The election of Anita Magar was challenged because she had given birth to her third child in 2004, which was after Maharashtra introduced a provision to disqualify people having more than 2 children from contesting in local elections in September 1, 2001. Therefore, the Court set aside from her election holding her disqualified as per Section 10(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
She claimed, the third child, was born to a different family. The parents of the disputed third kid were expected to be her husband’s brother and his wife. The third child’s parents were argued to be a different marriage based on the alterations made to the child’s birth certificate.
The Trial Court and the High Court of Bombay noted that the birth certificate of the third child was changed 8 years after the birth of the child in 2012, which was only before Anita Magar’s husband filed a nomination to contest in 2012. Based on the changed certificate, the Returning Officer had rejected a similar objection raised against Anita Magar’s husband in 2012.
The Trial Court and the High Court, on the other hand, refused to accept the late-in-the-game changes to the birth certificate. Anita Magar and her spouse were also listed as the parents on the relevant hospital notification from 2004.
The Bombay High Court’s single bench of Justice CV Bhadang upheld the civil court’s ruling to annul Anita Magar’s election.
“Considering the overall circumstances, the Trial Court is right in refusing to accept the contention that Poonam was the daughter of Sunita and Dattatray Magar. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that she was the daughter born to the petitioner and her husband“, the High Court observed
The Supreme Court confirmed the Bombay High Court’s decision on July 12 by dismissing Magar’s special leave petition.
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed”, a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed.
Also Read: Supreme Court to hear petition against Patna HC order on Wrong Evaluation of Land
