Electoral roll deadline controls ballot validity, and unproved collusion cannot sustain corrupt practice findings.

Corrupt practice based on alleged collusion between a returned candidate and electoral officers was not proved, because the pleadings and evidence failed to establish the necessary nexus and suspicion could not substitute for proof. The electoral roll could not be amended after 3 p.m. on the last date for nominations: Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, fixed that point of time as controlling, so names added later were without jurisdiction. Votes cast by such belatedly included electors were required to be excluded after scrutiny of the relevant ballots.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether corrupt practice was established on the basis of alleged collusion between the returned candidate and electoral officers; (ii) Whether inclusion of additional names in the electoral roll after 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations was illegal and required the votes of such electors to be excluded.

Issue (i): Whether corrupt practice was established on the basis of alleged collusion between the returned candidate and electoral officers.

Analysis: The pleadings and evidence did not satisfactorily establish the necessary nexus between the candidate and the officials so as to prove corrupt practice. Suspicion, even if strong, could not replace proof, and the material adduced was insufficient to sustain the finding of collusion or corrupt participation.

Conclusion: Corrupt practice was not established, and the disqualification founded on that finding could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether inclusion of additional names in the electoral roll after 3 p.m. on the last date for making nominations was illegal and required the votes of such electors to be excluded.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made the electoral roll final at the close of the nomination hour. Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 prohibited amendments or inclusions after the last date for nominations, and read with Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the controlling point of time was 3 p.m. on the appointed date. Names added thereafter were without jurisdiction and the votes cast by such belatedly included electors could not be counted. The proper course was to inspect the concerned ballots in secrecy and exclude the tainted votes before determining the result.

Conclusion: The late inclusions were invalid, and the votes of those electors were liable to be excluded from the count.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, the finding of corrupt practice was set aside, and the election result was directed to be re-examined after exclusion of the invalid votes through scrutiny of the relevant ballots.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the electoral law fixes a deadline for nominations, the electoral roll cannot be amended after the nomination hour, and any votes based on such unauthorized late inclusion are void and must be excluded from the election count.

---