Election nomination rejection must be decided on merits; burden cannot be shifted to candidate, and evidence on signatures must be heard.

In election disputes over improper rejection of a nomination, the election court must decide the controversy on merits as an original proceeding and may receive evidence on the genuineness of the proposers' signatures; confining review to the Returning Officer's decision-making process is erroneous. The Returning Officer must apply the statutory presumption that a nomination is valid unless a prima facie contrary case is made out, and may not shift the burden onto the candidate or demand conclusive proof at the scrutiny stage. A supposed concession by counsel could not bar the candidate from adducing evidence on signature genuineness. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was right in confining the challenge to the Returning Officer's decision-making process instead of deciding the genuineness of the proposers' signatures on merits; (ii) whether the Returning Officer erred in shifting the burden onto the candidate and in rejecting the nomination despite the statutory presumption in favour of validity; (iii) whether the candidate was wrongly prevented, because of a supposed concession, from leading evidence on the genuineness of the signatures in the election petition.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was right in confining the challenge to the Returning Officer's decision-making process instead of deciding the genuineness of the proposers' signatures on merits.

Analysis: A challenge under the election law to an improper rejection of nomination is not limited to reviewing the decision-making process of the Returning Officer. The election court, acting as a court of original jurisdiction, must decide the dispute on merits and may receive and assess evidence to determine whether the nomination was in fact improperly rejected. Limiting the inquiry to the legality of the process treated the election petition as if it were an appeal against the Returning Officer's order, which was an erroneous approach.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in confining itself to the decision-making process alone; it was required to adjudicate the controversy on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the Returning Officer erred in shifting the burden onto the candidate and in rejecting the nomination despite the statutory presumption in favour of validity.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the election handbook require scrutiny of nomination papers to be conducted summarily, with a presumption that a nomination paper is valid unless the contrary is prima facie made out. On a genuine objection, the Returning Officer may hold a summary inquiry and record brief reasons, but in case of doubt the benefit goes to the candidate. By insisting on conclusive proof from the candidate and treating the absence of such proof as decisive, the Returning Officer applied the wrong test and misdirected himself on the burden of proof.

Conclusion: The Returning Officer committed an error in law by shifting the onus onto the candidate and rejecting the nomination contrary to the presumption of validity.

Issue (iii): Whether the candidate was wrongly prevented, because of a supposed concession, from leading evidence on the genuineness of the signatures in the election petition.

Analysis: A statutory right to challenge an election cannot be taken away by an erroneous concession attributed to counsel, especially where the concession did not clearly cover the factual issue of whether the proposers had signed the nomination papers. The election petition had to be tried as an original proceeding, with issues framed and evidence received on the rival versions. Denial of that opportunity prevented adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The candidate could not be barred from leading evidence on the genuineness of the signatures on the basis of the supposed concession.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal on merits after permitting evidence, with the appeal allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In election disputes concerning improper rejection of a nomination, the election court must decide the controversy on merits as an original proceeding, and the Returning Officer must apply the statutory presumption in favour of validity without wrongly shifting the burden of proof onto the candidate.

---