Exclusive knowledge and best evidence rule led to adverse inference, invalid nomination acceptance, and election set aside.

A party asserting Scheduled Caste status for a reserved constituency must prove the special facts within his exclusive knowledge by the best available evidence; where the parents were shown to be Kurmi and the alleged inter-caste or Pasi lineage was not proved, an adverse inference followed from non-production of the father and mother. On the nomination issue, receipt of complaints, grave doubts over the caste certificate, an inquiry report and an FIR made acceptance of the nomination unsustainable. The election was set aside and a fresh election ordered, with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had established that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and was entitled to contest from the reserved constituency. (ii) Whether the nomination paper of the respondent had been improperly accepted in the circumstances proved on record.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had established that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and was entitled to contest from the reserved constituency.

Analysis: The appellant showed that the respondent's father was a Kurmi and his mother was also a Kurmi, which attracted the ordinary presumption about caste. The respondent's alternative case depended on an asserted inter-caste marriage and on the claim that he was born of a Pasi mother, but the crucial facts were within his special knowledge. The best available witnesses, namely the father and mother, were cited but not produced. In such circumstances, the burden did not remain on the appellant to disprove the respondent's special case, and the non-production of the best evidence justified an adverse inference.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to prove that he was a Scheduled Caste candidate entitled to contest from the reserved constituency.

Issue (ii): Whether the nomination paper of the respondent had been improperly accepted in the circumstances proved on record.

Analysis: The Returning Officer had received complaints, entertained grave doubts about the caste certificate, obtained an inquiry report, and even lodged an FIR, yet still accepted the nomination paper. In the face of such material, acceptance of the nomination was contrary to prudent administrative conduct and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The nomination paper was improperly accepted.

Final Conclusion: The election of the respondent was set aside and the appeal succeeded with costs, with a consequential direction for a fresh election to fill the vacancy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the decisive facts supporting a special plea are within a party's exclusive knowledge, that party must prove them by the best available evidence, and withholding such evidence permits an adverse inference under the Evidence Act.

---