- News>
- India
SC nails lies of Shakuni Chaudhary and his son
New Delhi, Oct 20: The Supreme Court has said that former Member of Parliament from Bihar Shakuni Chaudhary was a `totally untrustworthy witness` and nailed his lies spoken to defend his son Rakesh Kumar`s election from Parbatta constituency in 2000 despite he being below 25 years of age.
New Delhi, Oct 20: The Supreme Court has said that former Member of Parliament from Bihar Shakuni Chaudhary was a "totally untrustworthy witness" and nailed his lies spoken to defend his son Rakesh Kumar's election from Parbatta constituency in 2000 despite he being below 25 years of age.
The observation came from a bench comprising Chief
Justice V N Khare and Justice S B Sinha, which allowed an
election petition filed by Sushil Kumar and quashed the
election of Rakesh Kumar alias Samrat Chaudhary.
After considering various documents and evidence, the bench took note of the deposition of Shakuni Chaudhari with regard to the age of his son which according to documents varied between 19 and 29 in year 2000. The Constitution makes it mandatory for a person to be over 25 years to contest an election for an assembly constituency.
From the deposition of the elected candidate's father, the Supreme Court noted that "Samrat Chaudhary as on the date of admission in class II would have been aged 12 years. If the evidence of the vice-principal is to be believed, the same was impermissible as the maximum age for admission in class I was five years."
Justice Sinha, writing for the bench, observed that "it is difficult to believe that a boy aged about 15 years would be reading in class IV in a Christian school situated in the heart of the state capital."
Bureau Report
After considering various documents and evidence, the bench took note of the deposition of Shakuni Chaudhari with regard to the age of his son which according to documents varied between 19 and 29 in year 2000. The Constitution makes it mandatory for a person to be over 25 years to contest an election for an assembly constituency.
From the deposition of the elected candidate's father, the Supreme Court noted that "Samrat Chaudhary as on the date of admission in class II would have been aged 12 years. If the evidence of the vice-principal is to be believed, the same was impermissible as the maximum age for admission in class I was five years."
Justice Sinha, writing for the bench, observed that "it is difficult to believe that a boy aged about 15 years would be reading in class IV in a Christian school situated in the heart of the state capital."
Bureau Report