Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a civil appeal arising from an order passed under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 rejecting an election petition. The appellant, an election petitioner, challenged the election of the returned candidate from No.7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The respondent, the successful candidate, sought rejection before the High Court on three grounds: the copy of the election petition served on him lacked notarization in the Form-25 affidavit required under Section 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961; certain pages were not properly attested because pages 1 to 84 bore a rubber stamp 'attested to be true copy of the petition' while pages 85 to 185 bore 'certified to be true copy'; and four pages, specifically pages 11, 16, 21 and 22, were missing. The High Court found the attestation improper, did not discuss the Form-25 notarization issue, and rejected the missing pages contention as an afterthought. The appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the High Court's attestation finding contradicted F.A. Sapa v. Singora, which held that if copies are signed by the petitioner at the foot of every page taking responsibility for the copy being a true copy, no particular form of attestation is prescribed. The appellant also contended that Section 86 permits peremptory dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117, and that a defect in the Form-25 copy is a defect under the proviso to Section 83 not liable to peremptory dismissal. The respondent submitted that Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal applied squarely because the Form-25 copy did not show attestation by the Commissioner of Affidavits, and that the seal 'certified true copy' could be accepted only if the copies supplied were certified copies. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's finding on attestation, holding that the different rubber stamps employed convey the same meaning and that no particular form of attestation is prescribed under Section 81(3). The Court upheld the High Court's rejection of the missing pages contention. On the Form-25 issue, the Court examined Dr Shipra (Smt), T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian. It held that Dr Shipra (Smt) was not overruled and that T. Phungzathang erred in its understanding of the Constitution Bench decision. The Court observed that in Dr Shipra (Smt) itself it was held that if Form-25 read with Rule 94A is not in conformity, only those parts of the petition which contain allegations of corrupt practices are required to be struck off and other independent grounds, if any, are required to be tried and decided on merits. Therefore, a defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86. The Court also relied on Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore to hold that a defect in verification in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not fatal to maintainability. Consequently, the Court concluded that the election petition could not be dismissed in limine on the grounds raised, while affirming the finding on missing pages.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Attestation of Election Petition Copies - Section 81(3) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Copy of election petition served on returned candidate must be attested by petitioner under own signature as true copy; no particular form of attestation is prescribed - High Court held attestation improper because pages bore different rubber stamps 'attested to be true copy' and 'certified to be true copy'; Supreme Court reversed relying on F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375, holding different stamps convey same meaning and signature at foot of page suffices. Held that different rubber stamps employed convey the same meaning and do not violate Section 81(3). (Paras 5-9) B) Election Law - Form-25 Affidavit Verification and Attestation - Rule 94A Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 read with Section 83(1)(c) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Defect in Form-25 attestation is a defect under Section 83, not a ground for peremptory dismissal under Section 86; only corrupt practice allegations need be struck off - Court distinguished Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 181 and T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and Others, (1999) 4 SCC 274; noted T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 358 misread Constitution Bench; held absence of notarization in Form-25 copy supplied to returned candidate identical to Dr Shipra (Smt), but such defect does not entail dismissal of entire petition. Held that defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86; only parts alleging corrupt practices liable to be struck off and other independent grounds tried on merits. (Paras 11-21) C) Election Law - Verification of Pleadings - Section 83(1)(c) Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Defect in verification in manner laid down in CPC is not fatal to maintainability - Court followed Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 129, holding it impossible to accept that verification defect is fatal. Held that a defect in verification as required by Clause (c) of Section 83(1) is not fatal to maintainability. (Paras 22-23) D) Election Law - Missing Pages in Served Copy - Section 81(3) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Allegation of missing pages raised after appearance was an afterthought - High Court negatived contention regarding missing pages; Supreme Court found no reason to interfere. Held that High Court's finding on missing pages being an afterthought is affirmed. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on grounds of improper attestation of copies under Section 81(3), absence of notarization/attestation in Form-25 affidavit copy under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and missing pages in the served copy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's finding that attestation of the election petition copies was improper, holding that different rubber stamps 'attested to be true copy' and 'certified to be true copy' convey the same meaning under Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. It upheld the High Court's rejection of the missing pages contention as an afterthought. It further held that absence of notarization/attestation in the Form-25 affidavit copy supplied to the returned candidate is a defect under Section 83 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86; only the parts alleging corrupt practices are liable to be struck off while other independent grounds must be tried on merits. The Court observed that T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and Others erred in its understanding of the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and Others and that Dr Shipra (Smt) was not overruled.
