Final answer:
The claim that all acts done by the President of India before their election is declared void by the Supreme Court are invalidated is false. Such a scenario would lead to severe administrative challenges, hence by doctrine and convention, actions performed are typically upheld.
Step-by-step explanation:
An assertion that upon the election of the President of India being declared void by the Supreme Court, all acts performed by him or her in office before the date of the decision become invalid, is incorrect. When the Supreme Court declares the election of a President void, it does not automatically render all previous presidential acts invalid. The acts already done by the President in their official capacity are typically not undone because such an action would lead to a constitutional crisis and administrative chaos.
This principle is rooted in the doctrine of de facto versus de jure, where actions performed by a de facto office-holder, prior to determination of the illegitimacy of their appointment or election, are considered valid and effective. Historical precedence, judicial decisions, and constitutional provisions concerning governance ensure that the continuity of state functions is maintained, even if an election is later invalidated.