Election law non-compliance alone does not void a result without strict proof of material effect on outcome.

Proof of non-compliance with election law alone is insufficient to void an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; the petitioner must also show by cogent, reliable evidence that the result, so far as the returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. A polling station shifted from a non-notified venue to the notified place amounted to irregularity, but the challenge failed because the appellant did not prove that the breach altered the electoral outcome. Hearsay evidence was inadmissible for showing that voters left without voting or would have supported the appellant, and the oral evidence was found unreliable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the election of the returned candidate could be set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on proof of breach of the election law and whether the appellant had established that such breach materially affected the result of the election.

Analysis: The polling station was initially held at a non-notified venue and was later shifted to the notified place, which amounted to non-compliance with the election provisions governing the conduct of polling. However, under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), a declaration of void election requires more than proof of irregularity: it must also be shown that the result, in so far as it concerned the returned candidate, was materially affected. The Court reiterated that the burden lay on the election petitioner to prove this strictly, and that the evidence must be cogent and reliable. The Court also held that hearsay evidence remained inadmissible and could not be relied upon to prove that large numbers of voters had left without voting or that they would have voted for the appellant. The oral evidence relied upon by the appellant was found to be unreliable, exaggerated, and insufficient to establish that the alleged breach altered the electoral outcome.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove that the non-compliance materially affected the result of the election, and the challenge to the returned candidate's election was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv), proof of statutory non-compliance is insufficient by itself; the election petitioner must establish by cogent, reliable evidence that the result of the election was materially affected, and hearsay cannot be used to discharge that burden.

---