[111] Alluding to the views of Hon. Justice (Prof) Otieno-Odek, he postulated that the rationale for excluding a rejected or spoilt ballot is exemplified as being where the will of the voter is not expressed and as such the vote holds no weight. He thus urged that the will of the voter is ringfenced by the provisions of Article 38 (2) of the Constitution which gives every citizen the right to free, fair and regular elections, based on universal suffrage and the free expression of the will of the electors. [112] The fourth issue the Attorney General submitted on was the proper constitutional and legal threshold for invalidating a presidential election under Article 140 of the Constitution. He submitted on that issue that this should be considered within the context of the applicable legal and evidential burden of proof, the standard of proof and the irregularity in issue. [113] It was his further submission that there exists a rebuttable presumption in law as to the validity of election results by returning officers and the legal and evidentiary burden lies with he who seeks to upset it. In that regard,he cited the Supreme Court of India in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harmoniser Singh Jassi34, where the Court upheld the presumption of validity of election results. He also cited the 2013 Raila Odinga case in urging that he who alleges non – conformity with electoral law must not only prove non-compliance, but must also show that such non - compliance affected the validity of the elections. This burden of proof, he submitted, is captured in Section 107 as read together with Section 109 of the Evidence Act and must be discharged to the required standard. 34  Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, 1999 Supp(4) SCR 33; AIR 2000 SC 256   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            45  |  P a g e