Summary
The Court declined to reject an election petition merely because it lacked a separate Form 25 affidavit supporting allegations of corrupt practice. The existing affidavit and verification covered those allegations on oath and substantially complied with Section 83(1)(c). A defect of this kind is curable rather than a ground for automatic dismissal at the threshold.
Issues
- Whether absence of a separate prescribed affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations required threshold rejection of the election petition.
Provisions considered
- Section 83(1)(c), proviso; Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951The affidavit defect fell within the curable requirements of Section 83 rather than the violations specified for mandatory dismissal under Section 86(1). The sworn affidavit already filed substantially complied. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Order VI Rule 15; Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Court distinguished verification from a separate supporting affidavit and rejected the demand for threshold dismissal when the sworn pleadings substantially complied and any prescribed-form defect was curable. (¶¶ 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Non-compliance concerning the Section 83 affidavit is curable and does not, by itself, attract automatic dismissal under Section 86(1). The precedents distinguish those requirements from the statutory violations specifically attracting mandatory dismissal. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Section 83(1)(c) requires verification in the CPC manner, but does not itself demand an additional CPC affidavit distinct from the affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations. Substantial compliance with the prescribed affidavit requirement suffices against summary rejection, with an opportunity to cure a defect where needed. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The petition contained both verification and an affidavit swearing that the paragraphs alleging corrupt practice were true to the petitioner’s knowledge. Despite the absence of a separate affidavit confined to those allegations, there was substantial compliance; rejection was unwarranted. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The High Court’s reliance on Lok Prahari did not address the affidavit issue. Nevertheless, its refusal to reject the petition was sustained under the applicable decisions in Siddeshwar and A. Manju. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13, 16, 17)
Result
Returned candidate’s appeals dismissed; refusal to reject the election petition upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.