Special leave and election law: concealed age disqualification falls under constitutional non-compliance, not improper nomination acceptance.

Article 136 special leave jurisdiction was not excluded by the finality attached to election tribunal decisions or by Article 329(b), because the Supreme Court's constitutional power cannot be curtailed by ordinary legislation and extends to judicial tribunals. In election challenges, a concealed constitutional age disqualification does not amount to improper acceptance of nomination where the nomination paper and electoral roll disclose no defect and no objection is raised at scrutiny; that situation is treated as non-compliance with the Constitution under Section 100(2)(c), not as improper acceptance under Section 100(1)(c). The underage returned candidate's election was therefore void, while the other candidate's return remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is excluded by the finality attached to election tribunal decisions and by the constitutional bar in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the election of a candidate who was under the constitutional age qualification was liable to be set aside as an improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act or as non-compliance with the Constitution under Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act.

Issue (i): whether the Supreme Court's special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is excluded by the finality attached to election tribunal decisions and by the constitutional bar in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 329(b) bars ordinary proceedings questioning elections except by election petition in the manner provided by law, and the Representation of the People Act provides the statutory forum and declares tribunal orders final. However, Article 136 confers a constitutional power of special leave over judgments or orders of any court or tribunal, and that power cannot be curtailed by ordinary legislation. The election tribunal is a judicial tribunal within the scope of Article 136, and the statutory finality under Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act does not exclude the Supreme Court's constitutional power in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed, and the appeal was competent under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): whether the election of a candidate who was under the constitutional age qualification was liable to be set aside as an improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act or as non-compliance with the Constitution under Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act.

Analysis: A nomination is improperly accepted only where the defect is apparent on the nomination paper or electoral roll, or where an objection is raised and the Returning Officer errs on scrutiny. Where the candidate appears qualified on the face of the electoral roll and no objection is raised, the Returning Officer is bound to accept the nomination, and later proof of ineligibility does not convert that acceptance into an improper acceptance. The constitutional disability of being under age is a matter going to the candidate's capacity to be chosen at all, and the resulting election is vitiated by non-compliance with Article 173 of the Constitution of India, which is covered by Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act.

Conclusion: The election of the underage returned candidate was void under Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, but the appellant's election was not void.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the election was set aside against the constitutionally disqualified returned candidate, while the appellant's return was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate's concealed constitutional disqualification does not amount to improper acceptance of nomination when the nomination paper and electoral roll disclose no defect and no objection is raised at scrutiny; such a case is governed by the ground of non-compliance with the Constitution, not by improper acceptance of nomination.

---