Constitutional age qualification in elections: nomination acceptance cannot cure disqualification, and the election fails if minimum age is unmet.

A candidate for a State Legislative Assembly must have attained twenty-five years of age under Article 173(b), and acceptance of a nomination does not cure a constitutional disqualification. In an election challenge, the petitioner bears the initial burden, but Section 106 of the Evidence Act may apply to facts specially within the returned candidate's knowledge. The Court assessed school records, electoral records, the bail application, the Bihar School Examination Board record, and surrounding circumstances together, found the school documents unreliable, and treated the candidate's own conduct as significant. On the material as a whole, the candidate was found to be below the qualifying age, and the election was declared void.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate was below the constitutionally prescribed minimum age on the date of nomination and, if so, whether his election was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Article 173(b) of the Constitution of India requires a candidate for a State Legislative Assembly to have attained at least twenty-five years of age. Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 obliges the returning officer to examine objections to nomination, but acceptance of a nomination does not cure constitutional disqualification. In an election petition, the petitioner bears the initial burden, though facts within the special knowledge of the returned candidate may attract Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. School records, electoral records, the bail application, the Bihar School Examination Board record, and the surrounding circumstances were examined together. The Court found the school documents to be unreliable, treated the bail application and the conduct before the electoral authorities as significant admissions and adverse circumstances, and held that the material as a whole supported the plea that the candidate was not of qualifying age.

Conclusion: The returned candidate was held to be below twenty-five years of age on the date of nomination, and the election was declared void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the election was invalidated on the ground of constitutional disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election challenge to a candidate's qualification, the Court may assess the entire evidentiary record and surrounding circumstances, and where the material establishes that the returned candidate lacked the constitutionally required age, the election must fail notwithstanding acceptance of the nomination.

---