Constitutional oath before nomination scrutiny is a qualification requirement; later compliance cannot cure invalid nomination.

A candidate for a State Legislature must make and subscribe the constitutional oath or affirmation before scrutiny of nominations begins, because Article 173 treats that act as a qualification for election and Section 36(2)(a) permits rejection where the candidate is not qualified on the date fixed for scrutiny. The statutory scheme does not require the oath to accompany the nomination paper, but the words "on the date fixed for scrutiny" were read to cover the whole of that day from its commencement, not a later point in time. On that basis, the nomination was validly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a candidate for a State Legislature must have made and subscribed the oath or affirmation required by Article 173 of the Constitution before the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations so that the nomination can be validly scrutinised under Section 36(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Section 36(2)(a) authorises rejection of a nomination if, on the date fixed for scrutiny, the candidate is not qualified to be chosen to fill the seat. Article 173(a) makes the making and subscribing of the prescribed oath or affirmation a condition of qualification, and the form of oath itself contemplates a person who has already been nominated. The statutory scheme of Sections 30 to 36 does not require the oath to accompany the nomination paper. The expression "on the date fixed for scrutiny" was construed to mean the whole of that day from its earliest moment, not any later point on that day, because the validity of nominations must be capable of being determined when scrutiny begins and the law does not recognise fractions of a day for this purpose.

Conclusion: The oath or affirmation had to be made and subscribed before scrutiny commenced, and the nomination was rightly rejected.

---