Post-nomination electoral roll changes are barred, but election invalidity depends on proof that the result was materially affected.

Post-nomination amendments, deletions or inclusions in the electoral roll are barred by Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, but a late final publication of the roll is only a ministerial act and does not by itself invalidate an election. Any challenge based on illegal roll changes must also satisfy Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by pleading and proving that the result, so far as the returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. Mere illegality in the roll is insufficient without evidence of the affected votes and their impact on the outcome.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether addition or deletion of names in the electoral roll after the last date fixed for filing nominations invalidates the entire election. (ii) Whether an election petitioner must plead and prove that such illegal addition or deletion materially affected the result of the election.

Issue (i): Whether addition or deletion of names in the electoral roll after the last date fixed for filing nominations invalidates the entire election.

Analysis: The statutory bar in Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 prohibits amendment, transposition, deletion, or inclusion of names after the last date for nominations. That prohibition is mandatory as to the electoral changes themselves. However, the formal publication of the final roll is a ministerial act and its occurrence after the nomination cut-off does not by itself invalidate the roll or the election. What matters is whether any actual amendment, deletion, or inclusion was made after the cut-off.

Conclusion: The post-cut-off electoral changes, if any, were invalid, but the entire election was not void merely because the final roll was published later.

Issue (ii): Whether an election petitioner must plead and prove that such illegal addition or deletion materially affected the result of the election.

Analysis: Relief under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires strict pleading and proof that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate, was materially affected. Mere illegality in the electoral roll is insufficient. The petitioner must show the extent of the wrongful additions or deletions and their effect on the poll outcome. In the absence of evidence identifying the affected voters or establishing how the disputed votes were cast, the statutory burden is not discharged.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to prove material on the election result, so the election could not be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although the electoral roll process contained irregularity, the mandatory requirement of proving material effect on the result was not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: A violation of the prohibition on post-nomination electoral roll changes does not by itself void an election; it voids the election only if the election petitioner proves, on material facts and evidence, that the result was materially affected.

---