Age qualification and single transferable vote rules: disqualification did not justify declaring another candidate elected.

Contemporaneous documentary records and prior admissions were treated as substantive evidence of age, shifting the burden to the candidate to prove they were wrong. On that material, the Court found the returned candidate had not attained the constitutional minimum age on the scrutiny date, so his nomination was improperly accepted and his election was set aside. The Court then held that, in a proportional representation election by single transferable vote, disqualification of one candidate does not automatically justify declaring another candidate elected unless the rules clearly permit it. Because the voting consequences were speculative, the remaining appellant was not entitled to be declared elected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the returned candidate was under 30 years of age on the date of scrutiny of nominations and, therefore, lacked the constitutional qualification to contest the Rajya Sabha election. (ii) Whether, after setting aside his election, the remaining appellant was entitled to be declared elected under the election rules governing proportional representation by single transferable vote.

Issue (i): Whether the returned candidate was under 30 years of age on the date of scrutiny of nominations and, therefore, lacked the constitutional qualification to contest the Rajya Sabha election.

Analysis: The age issue was determined on the basis of contemporaneous documentary material and prior admissions made by the returned candidate in several solemn applications and public records. Those admissions, made long before the election dispute, were treated as substantive evidence and were held to shift the burden onto him to show that they were incorrect. The supporting records, including school, college, marriage, electoral and other documents, consistently pointed to a date of birth in 1946. The rival baptismal material produced by him was rejected as unreliable and suspicious, while the oral testimony supporting 1943 was found unconvincing. On that material, the Court found that the returned candidate had not attained the required age on the relevant date.

Conclusion: The returned candidate was constitutionally disqualified and his nomination was improperly accepted; the setting aside of his election was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether, after setting aside his election, the remaining appellant was entitled to be declared elected under the election rules governing proportional representation by single transferable vote.

Analysis: The Court examined the scheme of the election rules on continuing candidates, exclusion, transfer of surpluses, and filling of last vacancies. It held that a candidate is not automatically excluded merely because he secured no first-preference vote. The argument that the votes cast for the disqualified candidate should be treated as thrown away was rejected because the effect of such a disqualification in a single transferable vote election is speculative and cannot justify a declaration that another candidate was elected without the quota. The principle that votes for a disqualified candidate may be treated as wasted was distinguished as confined to a different electoral setting and not applicable to the present system of proportional representation with transferable voting.

Conclusion: The remaining appellant was not entitled to be declared elected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the returned candidate's election failed, and no consequential declaration of election could be granted to the remaining appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a single transferable vote election, a candidate's disqualification does not automatically entitle another candidate to be declared elected unless the election rules themselves clearly justify that result; where the voting consequences are speculative, the court will not treat the disqualified candidate's votes as thrown away to confer election on another contestant.

---