Judgment : This revision is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2014 passed in I.A. No. 751 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 284 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, where-under petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of CPC r/w Section 45 of Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC was allowed and second respondent /second petitioner herein was directed to subject herself to medical examination by a doctor (Gynecologist) of her choice accompanied by a Gynecologist nominated by the Superintendent, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar to know her present health condition and to know whether she gave birth to a child recently by undergoing caesarean operation. Further direction was issued to second respondent to make herself available for medical examination on the date and time as fixed by the two doctors. Revision petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in I.A. No. 751 of 2014. 2. Elections to the municipal corporation of Karimnagar were conducted on 30.3.2014, wherein first petitioner and first respondent herein contested for post of Ward Member of 39th ward. The results of the said elections were declared on 12.5.2014 and first petitioner was declared elected and first respondent stood as second candidate. First respondent filed E.O.P. No. 284 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar challenging the election of first petitioner. One of the grounds of challenge in the E.O.P. against the election of first petitioner was that first petitioner was father of three children, therefore earned disqualification to contest the election as a Ward Member of the Municipal Corporation and his election should be declared nullified. Reliance was placed on provision in Section 21 (B) of The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) which prescribe ineligibility to contest for municipal corporation election or to continue as a Member, if a person is blessed with more than two children. It was contended that third child was born to revision petitioners on 2.4.2014 in Apollo Nursing Home, Karimnagar and named as Mahek Fathima, but in the hospital records, the names of the parents was wrongly shown though the child was actually born to the revision petitioners. Birth of Mahek Fathima in Apollo Nursing Home is supported by a certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. Birth of Mahek Fathima in Apollo Nursing Home is supported by a certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. It was the case of the first respondent that he has no other evidence to show that third child was born to petitioners which would be a disqualification and to nullify the election of first petitioner it is necessary to ascertain whether the second petitioner has given birth to a child on 2.4.2014 by undergoing a caesarean operation. Since there is no other evidence available to him, to ascertain the truth it is necessary to by subject the second petitioner to medical examination to know whether second petitioner had undergone caesarean operation in recent past to give birth to a child and for that purpose filed I A No. 751 of 2014. Having considered the rival submissions, the learned Principal District Judge, passed orders on 27.6.2014 directing such medical examination. 3. Learned senior counsel Sri S Satyam Reddy, appearing for revision petitioners contended that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and is erroneous. He further contended that no such application under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable. 4. Learned senior counsel further contended that what is challenged in E.O.P. No. 284 of 2014 was the validity of the election of the first petitioner and the lis is between first petitioner and first respondent and second petitioner is no-way concerned with the election and therefore, an unconcerned party, cannot be directed to undergo medical examination for the purpose of ascertaining truth of giving birth to a child. 5. He further contended that the order under revision offends the right of privacy and decency of a women and no such order could have been passed without her consent. 6. He further contended that election petition is in the nature of criminal proceedings and burden lies on the election petitioner to establish that the candidate elected has violated the provisions of laws governing the election with cogent evidence and proof in support of his contention. He cannot make vague allegations and try to build up evidence by subjecting the other party or family members of other party to undergo medical examination. 7. He cannot make vague allegations and try to build up evidence by subjecting the other party or family members of other party to undergo medical examination. 7. Burden lies on the election petitioner/first respondent to prove that revision petitioners have given birth to a child on 2.4.2014 and on that account first petitioner earned disqualification to contest the election and therefore his election must be nullified. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel placed reliance on following decisions: B. RAVI YADAV Vs CHERKULA UDAY KUMAR AND OTHERS ( 2013 (1) ALD 733 (DB)), BALDEV SINGH MANN Vs SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN ( AIR 2009 SC 1045 ), SANTOSH YADAV Vs NARENDER SINGH ( (2002) 1 SCC 160 ), LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL Vs SUNKARA KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS ( 2010 (5) ALD 758 ), R.RAJAGOPAL Vs STATE OF T.N AND OTHERS ( 1994 (6) SCC 632 ) AND SELVI AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA ( 2010 (7) SCC 263 ). 8. Sri C.Hari Preeth learned counsel appearing for first respondent defends the order passed by the Court below. He contended that petitioners have given birth to a child on 2.4.2014 but to suppress the information of giving birth to a child, with the help of the Doctors who attended the second petitioner in ensuring the birth of a child, have manipulated the medical records of the hospital and shown names of other persons as parents to the child born on 2.4.2014. He further contended that since the records were manipulated, election petitioner has no other material to substantiate his claim, though he strongly believes that first petitioner is father of three children, therefore earned disqualification under Section 21-B of the Act and since first respondent has no other material to substantiate the allegations and the factum of giving birth to third child is crucial to the issue involved in the case, first respondent has sought for medical examination of the second petitioner herein, so that truth would come to light. The medical examination is only for the purpose of ascertaining whether second petitioner has undergone operation to give birth to a child and nothing more and only an expert can evaluate and give a repot to that extent and to ascertain the truth the Court is entitled to pass such orders. The medical examination is only for the purpose of ascertaining whether second petitioner has undergone operation to give birth to a child and nothing more and only an expert can evaluate and give a repot to that extent and to ascertain the truth the Court is entitled to pass such orders. He further contended that the order does not violate the right of privacy and human dignity of second petitioner and does not offend Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in SHARDA Vs DHARMPAL ( 2003 (4) SCC 493 ). 9. The issue that arises for consideration in this revision is whether even before the commencement of trial, can Trial Court order medical examination of a person who is unconcerned with the election petition against her will and consent? 10. In SANTOSH YADAV and BALDEV SINGH MANN, Supreme Court held that standard of proof is high and burden of proof is on the election petitioner to prove an allegation. Mere preponderance of probabilities are not enough, as may be the case in a civil dispute. Allegations should be clear and precise and charge should be proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and credible evidence. In SANTOSH YADAV, Supreme Court summarized the principles on improper acceptance of nominations. It is held that case has to be made out by raising specific pleadings setting out all material facts and adducing cogent evidence so as to enable a clear finding being arrived at. The burden of proving such material fact has to be discharged by the election petitioner by adducing positive, satisfactory and cogent evidence. If petitioner is unable to adduce such evidence the burden is not discharged and the election must stand. Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax the rigour of required proof. The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e., acting on a mere possibility. The law requires proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature. 11. The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e., acting on a mere possibility. The law requires proof. How far that proof should go or what it should contain is not provided by the legislature. 11. In B RAVI YADAV, Division Bench of this Court held as under: To prove the charge of corrupt practice a mere preponderance of probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available to the person charged. The charge shall have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same as in a criminal trial. It is further held by the Apex Court that the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of the election process has to be safeguarded and the Court shall be vigilant to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as re-election involves an enormous load on the public funds and administration. 12. The above decisions are followed by this Court in LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL. This Court held It is not the same thing as proof which comes later that the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty. It signifies that on first examination the matter appears to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisprudence, prima facie case denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. It is further held: The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures or suspicions do not take the place of legal proof, but at the time of framing charge in a criminal case, what is required to be seen is whether the charge-sheet and the documents relied upon including the FIR and the statement of witnesses, if accepted as true at that stage would constitute a prima facie case. Prima facie evidence means, on the face of it, there is a ground for proceeding. Prima facie evidence means, on the face of it, there is a ground for proceeding. It is not the same thing as proof which comes later that the Court has to find whether the accused is guilty. It signifies that on first examination the matter appears to be self evident from the facts. In common law jurisprudence, prima facie case denotes evidence which (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. 13. R.RAJAGOPAL is a case concerning right of privacy vis-a-vis freedom of press. Supreme Court summarized broad principles and held as under: 26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion: (1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a right to be let alone. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy." 14. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for first respondent is concerning an application for divorce, wherein an application was filed for direction for medical examination of the respondent. The question that fell for consideration by the Supreme Court was whether the party to divorce proceedings can be compelled to medical examination. Supreme Court held as under: 32. Yet again the primary duty of a court is to see that truth is arrived at. A party to a civil litigation, it is axiomatic, is not entitled to constitutional protections under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the civil court although may not have any specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, has an inherent power in terms of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass all orders for doing complete justice to the parties to the suit. 33. Thus, the civil court although may not have any specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, has an inherent power in terms of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass all orders for doing complete justice to the parties to the suit. 33. Discretionary power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is trite, can be exercised also on an application filed by the party. 34. In certain cases medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties. It may bring the parties to terms. 35. Having regard to development in medicinal technology, it is possible to find out that what was presumed to be a mental disorder of a spouse is not really so. 36. In matrimonial disputes, the court has also a conciliatory role to play even for the said purpose it may require expert advice. 37. Under Section 75(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 26 Rule 10-A the civil court has the requisite power to issue a direction to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation. 15. In SELVI , Supreme Court on review of the entire case law on issue of subjecting a person to Narcoanalysis, polygraph test (lie-detector test) and BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) test, held that test results cannot be admitted in evidence if they have been obtained through the use of compulsion. Article 20 (3) protects an individuals choice between speaking and remaining silent, irrespective of whether the subsequent testimony proves to be inculpatory or exculpatory. Article 20 (3) aims to prevent the forcible conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the facts in issue. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a testimonial character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence. It is further held that We have also elaborated how the compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It would also amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms. (para 263). It is further held that We have also elaborated how the compulsory administration of any of these techniques is an unjustified intrusion into the mental privacy of an individual. It would also amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with regard to the language of evolving international human rights norms. (para 263). It is further held that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the contest of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. (para 264). 16. Right to privacy is implicit in right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No persons privacy can be invaded much against the consent and will of that person. Certain exceptions to this rigid principle are carved out where larger public interest is involved and in matters concerning matrimonial cases. It is held that a person who is alleged to have been suffering with HIV disease can be subjected to medical examination even against his will as it is necessary to know his medical condition since it is likely affect life of others also. Similarly, in personal law concerning relationship of husband and wife and the children born to such wedlock, the right to privacy is invaded to ascertain whether the marriage was consumed properly, whether the spouses to the marriage are suitable to live together or suffering from any disease which disentitles them to live as husband and wife. In matters where a marriage is sought to be nullified also it may be necessary to ascertain the health of one of the spouses of the marriage etc. To ascertain the birth of a child to the couple, DNA test can be ordered. Similarly, when it comes to the custody of a child, the mental condition of the spouse is also necessarily to be ascertained before Court orders the custody of the child to one of the parents. In all such circumstances, subjecting a person to medical examination does not amount to violating right of privacy. These are exceptions to normal rule. 17. As held by the Supreme Court in SANTOSH YADAV AND BALDEV SINGH MANN and this Court in LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL, in election matters the standard of proof is high and burden is on the election petitioner. These are exceptions to normal rule. 17. As held by the Supreme Court in SANTOSH YADAV AND BALDEV SINGH MANN and this Court in LAGADAPATI RAJA GOPAL, in election matters the standard of proof is high and burden is on the election petitioner. Mere preponderance of probabilities or presumptions cannot be the basis to challenge an election. The election proceedings are akin to criminal proceedings. In view of the above proposition of law on the subject, the burden lies on the first respondent to make specific allegation and lead evidence in support of said allegation. Petitioner in Election Petition cannot seek to elicit such information by subjecting a non-party to the election to medical examination. 18. In R.RAJAGOPAL, Supreme Court held that a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among others. 19. A woman has a right to be silent, not to disclose about giving birth to a child. No person can compel a woman to give up this right much against her will. The case on hand does not fall into the exceptions carved out from the normal principle on right to privacy, more particularly, when the woman is not the person elected and is a stranger to the issue of earning disqualification by an elected candidate. A wrong declaration and a resultant disqualification relates to the first petitioner. Second petitioner is no way concerned. She is a stranger to the election dispute. Thus, she cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination against her will. Certainly subjecting the second petitioner to medical examination would offend her personal liberty, privacy and dignity of person that is bestowed on second petitioner as a woman. There can be many reasons where the woman would genuinely wish to keep the issue of giving birth to a child not disclosed. By virtue of subjecting her to medical examination at the instance of the petitioner in election petition, the factum of giving birth to or otherwise would be in public domain and would be against the conscience and will of the person concerned and can have deleterious effect which cannot be repaired. The consequence of such medical examination can be far and wide. 20. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No. 751 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 284 of 2014 dated 27.6.2014 is set aside. The consequence of such medical examination can be far and wide. 20. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No. 751 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 284 of 2014 dated 27.6.2014 is set aside. However, it is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition and E.O.P. No. 284 of 2014 shall be considered on its merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.