Conviction-based disqualification takes effect only on actual conviction, so an earlier same-day vote remains valid.

A statutory disqualification triggered by conviction under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 takes effect only from the actual time of conviction and cannot be related back to invalidate an act done earlier on the same day. On that reasoning, a vote cast before conviction and sentence remained valid despite the later disqualification. Because the challenge to the election depended entirely on that vote being invalid, no basis survived to declare the election petitioner duly elected. The note also rejects any use of the de facto doctrine or related precedents to defeat an act completed before conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly before conviction and sentence on the same day could be treated as invalid because the member was later disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether, if the vote was valid, the election petitioner was entitled to be declared duly elected.

Issue (i): Whether a vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly before conviction and sentence on the same day could be treated as invalid because the member was later disqualified under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Disqualification under Article 191(1)(e) operates because of conviction, and Section 8(3) makes the date of conviction the commencement point of that disqualification. The Court held that the expression does not require the disqualification to relate back to the beginning of the day so as to defeat an act done earlier on the same date. A contrary view would make the consequence precede the cause and would undermine the presumption of innocence and the principle that a conviction cannot take effect before it actually occurs. The Court also distinguished precedents dealing with scrutiny of nominations, limitation, insurance, and other contexts where the expression "date" had been construed differently. It further held that the de facto doctrine and the constitutional scheme did not justify invalidating an act done before the conviction.

Conclusion: The vote cast at 9:15 a.m. was valid and could not be treated as an invalid vote on account of the later conviction and sentence.

Issue (ii): Whether, if the vote was valid, the election petitioner was entitled to be declared duly elected.

Analysis: The claim to be declared elected depended entirely on the first issue. Once the challenged vote was held to be valid, the basis for altering the result of the election disappeared and no automatic declaration of the petitioner as elected could follow.

Conclusion: The election petitioner was not entitled to be declared duly elected.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's findings on the disqualification-related issues were set aside, the challenge to the impugned vote failed, and the connected appeals were disposed of by dismissing the appeal of the defeated candidate and allowing the appeal of the returned candidate.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory disqualification triggered by conviction takes effect only from the actual time of conviction and cannot be related back to invalidate acts done earlier on the same day.

---