On November 17, 2025, Mohammad Azam Khan, the 77-year-old Samajwadi Party stalwart and sitting MP from Rampur, and his son Abdullah Azam Khan, a former Uttar Pradesh MLA, were dragged from the courtroom straight into police custody after being sentenced to seven years in prison each. The verdict, delivered by Rampur MP/MLA Court in Uttar Pradesh, came after a years-long legal battle over forged documents used to secure two PAN cards — a case that exposed how political ambition collided with India’s electoral age rules.
The Forgery That Derailed a Political Dynasty
The core of the case hinged on a simple, yet damning fact: Abdullah Azam Khan was born on January 1, 1993. That made him just 23 years old when he filed his nomination for the 2017 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. The legal minimum age to contest state assembly polls is 25. So, according to prosecutors, he and his father used a second, falsified birth certificate to make him appear older. The documents were submitted to the Election Commission, and he won the seat. But the fraud didn’t stay hidden. In December 2019, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Akash Saxena filed a police complaint, triggering a probe that uncovered not just the fake birth certificate, but also a second PAN card issued under a different name and date of birth. The court found overwhelming evidence — matching fingerprints, inconsistent signatures, and testimony from officials who processed the documents. The prosecution, led by advocate Swadesh Sharma and officer Rakesh Kumar Maurya, argued this wasn’t just a technical violation. It was a deliberate scheme to manipulate the electoral system. And Azam Khan, as the father and political mentor, was deemed the mastermind behind the conspiracy.A Pattern of Legal Troubles
This isn’t Azam Khan’s first brush with the law. It’s his fourth conviction — and the third time in five years he’s been sent to jail alongside his son. Since the BJP took power in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, over 84 cases have been filed against him. They range from the absurd — goat theft, land grabbing — to the serious: criminal intimidation, graft, and hate speech. He’s been acquitted in four other cases, but the sheer volume has turned his life into a revolving door of courtrooms and jails. Just two months before this verdict, on September 23, 2025, Azam Khan walked out of Sitapur Jail after serving 23 months in custody. His son Abdullah had been released nine months earlier from Hardoi Jail. Both had been out for barely long enough to catch their breath — and now, they’re back behind bars.“It Is Fine. If They Have Considered Me Guilty…”
As police led Azam Khan away in handcuffs, journalists pressed him for a reaction. He didn’t raise his voice. Didn’t curse the court. Didn’t claim innocence. He simply said, “What is there to say now? It is the court’s decision.” When asked about the seven-year term, he added, “It is fine. If they have considered me guilty, they have given the punishment.” His demeanor was quiet, almost resigned. But behind that calm, there’s a political earthquake. Azam Khan has long been a formidable force in Rampur — a community leader, a vote-bank architect, a man who could mobilize thousands with a single speech. Now, with his body behind bars, his influence may be fading. His son, once seen as his political heir, is now serving time alongside him.What This Means for the Samajwadi Party
The Samajwadi Party, already reeling from internal fractures and declining electoral performance, now faces a leadership vacuum in Rampur. Azam Khan’s name still carries weight among his base, but his physical absence will be felt in upcoming local elections. Party leaders are publicly maintaining silence, but insiders admit they’re scrambling to find a replacement who can hold the ground without triggering backlash. Legal experts say this case is significant not just for its outcome, but for its symbolism. It shows that even powerful politicians aren’t immune to consequences — at least when the evidence is clear. The Supreme Court had already refused to quash the FIR in 2024, signaling judicial patience had run out. And now, the trial court has delivered a verdict that could set a precedent for how electoral fraud involving age falsification is treated.What’s Next?
The prosecution has hinted they may appeal for a harsher sentence, arguing the seven-year term is too lenient given the scale of the deception. Azam Khan’s defense team, led by advocate Sandip Saxena, plans to file a review petition. They’re also pushing for him to remain in Rampur Jail rather than be moved to a distant facility — a request still pending. Meanwhile, the Election Commission is reviewing whether Abdullah’s 2017 election win should be annulled. If it is, a by-election looms — and with it, a chance for the BJP to make a serious push in a constituency long considered SP territory.Background: A Political Figure in the Crosshairs
Azam Khan’s legal troubles began in earnest after the BJP’s 2017 victory. His first major case was a hate speech charge ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. But the real shift came when state agencies began re-examining old complaints, often dormant for years. Suddenly, land disputes from the 1990s became criminal cases. A dispute over a goat became a theft charge. What was once political rivalry turned into a legal siege. His wife, Tazeen Fatma, was also sentenced to seven years in a similar forged document case in October 2023. The family’s legal saga reads like a dark political drama — where every victory is short-lived, and every release is just a pause before the next hearing.Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Abdullah Azam Khan ineligible to contest the 2017 UP Assembly elections?
Abdullah Azam Khan was born on January 1, 1993, making him 23 years old during the 2017 elections. Indian law requires candidates for state legislative assemblies to be at least 25 years old. To bypass this, he and his father used a forged birth certificate to falsely show his birth year as 1990, giving him the appearance of eligibility. The court found this was a deliberate act of fraud.
How many cases are pending against Azam Khan?
As of November 2025, 84 cases have been filed against Azam Khan since 2017, with 80 of them initiated after the BJP came to power in Uttar Pradesh. He has been convicted in four cases, acquitted in four, and the rest remain pending in various courts. Many are viewed by critics as politically motivated, though prosecutors maintain they’re based on documented evidence.
Could Azam Khan still hold his parliamentary seat after this conviction?
Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, a conviction for a crime carrying a sentence of two years or more leads to automatic disqualification from holding public office. Since Azam Khan received a seven-year sentence, his MP status is legally revoked. The Election Commission will now formally notify his seat as vacant, triggering a by-election in Rampur.
Is this case unique, or part of a broader trend in Uttar Pradesh?
No, it’s part of a broader pattern. Since 2017, multiple senior politicians from opposition parties — especially SP and Congress — have faced a surge in criminal cases, many related to electoral fraud, land disputes, and forgery. While some are seen as politically targeted, courts have upheld convictions when evidence is solid, signaling a shift toward stricter enforcement of electoral integrity laws.
What happens to Abdullah Azam Khan’s 2017 election win now?
The Election Commission has not yet annulled his win, but it’s under review. If the court’s verdict is upheld and the fraud is deemed to have materially affected the election outcome, his victory could be nullified. That would open the door for a by-election in the Rampur Assembly constituency — potentially reshaping local power dynamics ahead of the next state polls.
Why did the court reduce Azam Khan’s sentence for time served?
Indian law allows judges to deduct the number of days a convict has already spent in judicial custody during trial from their final sentence. Azam Khan spent time in custody during earlier phases of this case, so the court applied that provision. However, the prosecution argues the reduction was too generous, given the premeditated nature of the crime, and may appeal for a longer term.