Summary
The Court restored an election petition dismissed for failure to file an affidavit in Form 25 supporting allegations of corrupt practice. The petition already contained verification and a supporting affidavit, so absence of the prescribed form was a curable defect rather than total absence of an affidavit. The allegations extended beyond mere statutory nondisclosure, making the prescribed affidavit necessary, but the petitioner deserved an opportunity to supply it. The rejection application was dismissed, fifteen days allowed to file Form 25, and urgent continuation of the election trial directed without deciding the allegations.
Issues
- Whether an election petition supported by an affidavit outside Form 25 could be rejected at the threshold rather than permitting cure.
- Whether substantial compliance with copy attestation and the scope of the allegations affected maintainability.
Provisions considered
- Sections 81(3), 83 and 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951Substantial copy attestation sufficed here; the prescribed affidavit defect under Section 83 was curable on the existing verified petition and supporting affidavit. (¶¶ 4, 19-26)
- Rule 94A and Form 25, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961The affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations had to follow the prescribed form, but the petitioner was allowed to supply it within fifteen days. (¶ 21-26)
Held
- The High Court correctly rejected the technical objection concerning unsigned index and synopsis where the election-petition copies were attested and Section 81(3) was substantially complied with. (¶¶ 9, 20)
- Read as a whole, the petition alleged undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination as well as nondisclosure. The Court did not accept that the allegations were confined to Section 33A so as to dispense with the corrupt-practice affidavit requirement. (¶ 21-22)
- The petition had verification and a supporting affidavit, though not in Form 25. It was therefore incorrect to treat the case as one of complete absence of an affidavit. The defect was curable, and an opportunity to provide the prescribed form should have been granted. (¶ 22-24)
- At the threshold, the petitioner had not refused or failed to cure a defect after opportunity. The pleaded case and supporting material were already clear, so allowing the proper affidavit did not permit embellishment. Whether the allegations were established remained for trial. (¶ 24-25)
- The dismissal order was set aside and the returned candidate’s rejection application dismissed. Form 25 could be filed within fifteen days, and further proceedings were to be taken up urgently; each party bore its own costs. (¶ 26-27)
Result
Appeal allowed with parties bearing their own costs; rejection of election petition set aside, fifteen days allowed to file Form 25 and urgent continuation of proceedings directed.