Mandatory nomination requirements and proof of age in elections require strict compliance and reliable connecting evidence.

A candidate who was an elector of another constituency had to file the electoral roll, relevant part, or certified copy of the relevant entries with the nomination paper or before scrutiny; that requirement was mandatory, and failure to comply justified rejection because the returning officer was not bound to search for the record or cure the omission. On age eligibility, school and examination records could be looked at, but they did not prove date of birth unless the source of the entry was established by competent connecting evidence. As no reliable proof of the candidates' age was produced, the rejection of the nominations was not shown to be improper on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the nomination paper of a candidate who was an elector of a different constituency was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of producing the electoral roll or certified copy of relevant entries at the time of scrutiny; (ii) Whether the rejection of the nomination papers of two candidates on the ground that they had not attained the qualifying age was proved to be improper on the evidence adduced in the election petition.

Issue (i): Whether the nomination paper of a candidate who was an elector of a different constituency was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of producing the electoral roll or certified copy of relevant entries at the time of scrutiny.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required such a candidate to establish eligibility by filing the electoral roll of the other constituency, the relevant part thereof, or a certified copy of the relevant entries either with the nomination paper or before the returning officer at scrutiny. The provision was mandatory, and non-compliance attracted rejection under the rejection clause governing failure to comply with the nomination requirements. The law did not oblige the returning officer to search out the record from another constituency or cure the candidate's omission by other means. The defect was substantial and could not be treated as directory or waived.

Conclusion: The rejection of the nomination paper on this ground was valid and in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the nomination papers of two candidates on the ground that they had not attained the qualifying age was proved to be improper on the evidence adduced in the election petition.

Analysis: The returning officer was entitled, at the summary scrutiny stage, to act on the electoral roll when no convincing material was placed before him. However, in election proceedings the matter could be re-examined on full evidence. The documents relied upon to prove age, including school and examination records, were admissible, but they did not by themselves establish the truth of the dates of birth unless the source of the entry was proved by the person who supplied the information or by someone with special knowledge, such as parents or close relations. Mere proof of the records did not amount to proof of the contents. As no reliable connecting evidence was produced, the burden of proving that the candidates had completed the qualifying age was not discharged.

Conclusion: The High Court's finding that the nominations were improperly rejected was unsustainable, and the rejection could not be said to have been wrongly made on the evidence.

Final Conclusion: The election of the appellant could not be set aside on the material on record, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a specific mode of proving eligibility for nomination and attaches rejection as the consequence of non-compliance, that requirement is mandatory; and entries in school or similar public records about age have no probative value unless the source of the entry is proved by competent connecting evidence.

---