Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – r.94A – Non-submission of Form 25 – Election petition containing allegations of corrupt practices – Whether election petition can be thrown out at the threshold on a plea of the elected candidate that the petition is not supported by an affidavit in Form 25 – Held: Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition – On facts, looking at the election petition, the prayer clause is followed by a verification – There is also a verifying affidavit in support of the election petition – Thus, factually it would not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition, albeit not in Form 25 – This is a curable defect and the Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the election petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition – Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25 – The petition is at a threshold stage – It is not as if the election petitioner has failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so – This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is sought to be urged on behalf of elected candidate – Election petitioner has stated the case clearly and in no uncertain terms with supporting material in the election petition – Whether the violation is made out by elected candidate or not would be a matter of trial but certainly not a matter to be shut out at the threshold – Representation of People Act, 1961 – s.86(1) – Elections laws. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The primary plea taken by the appellant is largely that success in the elections was obtained by concealment of material, which would have been germane in determining the opinion of the electorate. In effect, were such material to be available with the electorate, they would have exercised another option on the basis of it. However, while the requirements to be met in the election petition may be technical in nature, they are not hyper-technical. The hyper-technical view sought to be taken of non-signing and verification of the index and the synopsis has been rightly rejected by the High Court. [Paras 19 and 20] [207-A-C]
2. The High Court did not fall into an error while considering the election petition as a whole to come to the conclusion that the allegations of the appellant were not confined only to Section 33A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit as undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No.1 were also pleaded as violation of the mandate under Sections 123 and
100 of the RP Act. Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition. In election petition, the prayer clause is followed by a verification. There is also a verifying affidavit in support of the election petition. Thus, factually it would not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition, albeit not in Form 25. This was a curable defect and the Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition.[Paras 22, 23][207-F-G; 208-B-D] Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh
Rathore AIR 1964 SC 1545 : [1964] 3 SCR 573 –
followed.
Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 2638; G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776: [2013] 4 SCR 1107 – relied on. Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone (1980) 1 SCC 403 : [1980] 1 SCR 1177; B.R. Patil v. Rajeev Chandrashekhar & Ors.ILR 2007 Kar 317; Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati & Ors. AIR 1992 Bom 227; Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1027 : [1964] 6 SCR 213;
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC
467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987; H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 768 : [1999] 1 SCR 198; T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC
358 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 256; Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 191 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 331 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.