2026 INSC 915 Page 1 of 15

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.7474 of 2025

Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury

...Appellant

Versus

Kripanath Mallah & Ors.

...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Shorn of the multitude of facts, the present appeal arises

from an order passed under Section 86 of the Representation

of People Act, 1951

1

, rejecting an Election Petition filed by

the appellant herein. The respondent, who filed the

application under Section 86 of the RoP Act, was the

successful candidate elected from No.7 Karimganj

Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the general elections

to the Lok Sabha held in the year 2024.

1

Hereinafter referred to as ‘the RoP Act’

Page 2 of 15

2. We refer to the parties from their status in the Civil

Appeal.

3. Essentially three contentions were taken before the

High Court, which were as follows:-

(i) That, in the copy of the Election Petition served upon

the respondent, the affidavit in Form-25, as required

under Section 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules,

1961, did not indicate any notarization having been

carried out;

(ii) That, certain pages of the Election Petition were not

attested properly i.e: from Page No.1 to Page No.84

of the copy served, the respondent had put a

signature under a rubber stamp ‘attested to be true

copy of the petition’ and from Page No.85 to Page

No.185, the rubber stamp was of ‘certified to be true

copy’; the latter not being an attestation strictly under

Section 81, and

(iii) That, four pages, specifically Page Nos.11,16, 21 and

22 were missing from the Election Petition.

4. The Court found the attestation to be not proper, did

not discuss about the notarization in Form-25 and negatived

Page 3 of 15

the contention regarding the missing pages. The appellant,

the Election Petitioner, is before us challenging the same.

5. Mr. Harin Pravinkant Raval, learned Senior Counsel

for the appellant would point out that the finding of the High

Court that the attestation was not proper, is in the teeth of

various judgments of this Court. Reliance is placed on F.A.

Sapa v. Singora

2

, which specifically dealt with the

compliance of Section 81(3) of the RoP Act. If the copies are

signed by the petitioner at the foot of every page, taking the

responsibility of the copy being a true copy, the same would

suffice, especially when no particular form of attestation is

prescribed is the contention. It was also pointed out that

Section 86 requires peremptory dismissal of the Election

Petition, only if it does not comply with the provisions of

Sections 81, 82 or 117. The specific contention raised of the

copy of Form-25 having not shown attestation, if at all, is a

defect under the proviso to Section 83 not liable to be

reckoned for peremptory dismissal.

2

(1991) 3 SCC 375

Page 4 of 15

6. Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, learned AoR for the respondent,

submitted that there is no finding rendered by the Court

insofar as Form-25 is concerned and though the original

affidavit filed before Court has been attested by the

Commissioner of Affidavits, there is nothing to indicate such

attestation having been made as per the requirement in

Form-25. In this circumstance, Dr Shipra (Smt) and Others v.

Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Others

3

, applies squarely. The

defect pointed out in the Form-25, in the affidavit alleging

corrupt practices would be a relevant defect in presentation,

a violation of Section 81. It is also contended that the

attestation with the seal ‘certified true copy’ can be accepted

only if the copies supplied were certified copies. Learned

AoR for the respondent seeks to sustain the order.

7. Insofar as the missing pages are concerned, the

impugned judgment found that it is an afterthought, since on

many occasions when the respondent appeared after

summons were issued, there was no such contention taken.

3

(1996) 5 SCC 181

Page 5 of 15

We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the said finding

of the High Court.

8. Admittedly, there was difference in the attestation in

the Election Petition, as noticed hereinabove. Section 81 (3)

provides every Election Petition to be accompanied by as

many copies as there are respondents and requires every

such copy to be attested by the Election Petitioner under his

own signature, to be true copy of the petition. In fact, the

signature of the Election Petitioner on the foot of the page,

certifying the same as true copy would suffice, was the clear

declaration in F.A. Sapa

2

. The learned Judges found that on a

plain reading of Section 81(3), two requirements come out;

one, with respect to the number of copies being equal to the

number of respondents and the other, regarding attestation

by the petitioner himself, that such copy is a true copy of the

petition. All that the provision requires is that the copies

should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the

petition under his own signature, taking responsibility for the

copy served to be a true copy of the original petition and no

particular form of attestation is prescribed.

Page 6 of 15

9. We respectfully concur with the findings in F.A. Sapa

2

and reverse the finding to the contrary in the impugned

judgment since the different rubber stamps employed

convey the same meaning.

10. However, a little problem arises insofar as the

attestation in Form-25 is concerned. Form-25, as we see,

under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, has to be signed

by the Election Petitioner and attested by a Magistrate of the

First

Class, a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths, as solemnly

affirmed before him on such and such date. There can hence

be no dispute raised that an affirmation on oath is required;

the allegation also being only of the copy not showing such

attestation of such affirmation, by the Commissioner of

Affidavits, who had attested the original file before court.

11. We had reserved the matter for judgment, relying on

the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose

and Others

4

, but later found the copies produced herein to

have no semblance of notarization having been carried out.

Then, we posted the matter back and queried learned Senior

4

(1999) 4 SCC 274

Page 7 of 15

Counsel for the appellant, specifically pointing out Page

Nos.421 and 577 of the paper book, where the Form-25

affidavit is produced. No attestation is seen therein, not even

a printed affirmation with space left for the signature to be

affixed, of the Commissioner of Affidavits and the blank

space for the date; as seen from Form-25 in the Conduct of

Elections Rules, 1961.

12. Mr. Harin Pravinkant Raval, learned Senior Counsel

for the appellant, then took us through the decision in T.M.

Jacob

4

and also that in T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian

and Others

5

, wherein the later three Judge Bench had

specifically declared that the case in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

was no

more good law after T.M. Jacob

4

. It was argued that applying

the theories of substantial compliance and of curability, it was

held that the Election Petition was not liable to be dismissed

in limine, in identical circumstances in T. Phungzathang

5.

13. We bestowed our careful attention to the three

decisions cited before us. Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, as we noticed,

was in an identical circumstance. The preliminary objection

5

(2001) 8 SCC 358

Page 8 of 15

raised therein included that of the copy of the notice,

together with the affidavit in support of the Election Petition,

served on the Returned Candidate, having not contained the

verification by the Notary and hence, the Election Petition

was not maintainable under Section 83 (1)(c) of the RoP Act.

It was held that corrupt practices are to be proved to the hilt

and an element of vagueness would vitiate the Election

Petition, which would lead to a dismissal in limine, when there

is a true copy supplied with mistakes of vital and serious

nature. Though, it was held that no general principle of

universal application can be laid down, it was categorically

held that substantial compliance would not be sufficient

either. Allegations of corrupt practice, entailing civil

consequences of disqualification for a maximum period of six

years, apart from conviction, mandates strict compliance of

the statutory requirement and a true copy supplied to the

Returned Candidate containing the attestation by the

prescribed authority and certified to be true copy by the

Election Petition in his or her own signature was held to be a

sina qua non.

Page 9 of 15

14. Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, with due respect, was not overruled

but distinguished in T.M. Jacob

4

. While Dr Shipra (Smt)

3 did

not contain any indication of the attestation having been

carried out, in T.M. Jacob

4

, the situation was different. The

copy of the affidavit supplied to the Returned Candidate,

contained the endorsement that the affidavit has been duly

affirmed, signed and verified by the applicant before a

Notary. Under the affirmation by the Notary, the words ‘sd/-

Notary’ were also written. What was missing, was the name

and address, as well as the stamp and seal of the Notary,

before whom the affidavit had been affirmed and who had

attested the affidavit.

15. The defect in T.M. Jacob

4 was found to be materially

different from the defect in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, and the copy of

the affidavit supplied to the Returned Candidate, gave rise to

neither apprehension of misrepresentation nor result in a

ground of the statutory compliance having not been met,

held the Constitution Bench. In fact, it was observed by one

of the learned Judges in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3 specifically that the

principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted in

the fact situation, thus giving it no general application

Page 10 of 15

divorced from the fact situation of a given case, was how the

Constitution Bench reasoned and distinguished it.

16. At the risk of repetition, the instant case is identical to

Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

.

17. We have gone through the judgment cited by the

learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in T.

Phungzathang

5

, which also brought forward an identical

situation with a similar contention for rejection of the Election

Petition; that the affidavits filed in support of the corrupt

practices and supplied to the Returned Candidate, did not

contain due verification and attestation by the Oath

Commissioner/prescribed authority, resulting in the

violation of mandatory requirements of Sections 81(3) and 83

(1) of the RoP Act. In Paragraph 7, where Paragraph 16 of Dr

Shipra (Smt)

3 was extracted, it was found that ‘the defect

pointed out in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3 case pertains to those in the

original affidavit filed before the court in support of the

allegations of corrupt practice and not with reference to the

copies supplied to the respondents’ (sic).

18. With due respect, we are unable to agree, as the

allegation specifically noted in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3 case in

Page 11 of 15

Paragraph 1 and also evidence from the extract made of

Paragraph 16 from T.M. Jacob

4

, was otherwise. The

Constitution Bench, having noticed the judgment of one of the

judges in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, found that ‘it transpires that in Dr

Shipra (Smt)

3 case, ‘the true copy of the Election Petition

furnished to the respondent gave an impression that Election

Petitioner’s affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt

practice had not been duly shown and verified by the Election

Petitioner before the notary’ (sic).

19. Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, T. Phungzathang

5

and the present

appeal bring forth identical situation and identical argument.

20. We cannot but with due respect observe that the

specific ground in Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

, as noticed in T.

Phungzathang

5

, was not correct and so T. Phungzathang

5

erred in its understanding of the Constitution Bench decision

in T.M. Jacob

4

. Dr Shipra (Smt)

3

was never overruled.

21. Be that as it may, we have to notice two relevant

aspects in considering the issue of lack of attestation in Form-

25, i.e. in the copies supplied to the Returned Candidate. In

Dr Shipra (Smt)

3 itself, in the concluding paragraph, it was

noticed that the High Court, while rejecting the Election

Page 12 of 15

Petition, held that even if more grounds were raised assailing

the legality of the election results declared, the defect in

Form-25 of an absence of notarization/attestation would

entail dismissal of the petition. The three Judge Bench in Dr

Shipra (Smt)

3) found that this is not the correct position in law

and held that if Form-25 read with Rule 94A is not in

conformity with the requirement, then those parts of the

petition which contain allegations of corrupt practices alone

are required to be struck off and other independent grounds,

if any, are required to be tried and decided on merits.

Obviously, the defect under Section 83 does not entail

peremptory dismissal under Section 86 of the RoP Act.

22. The second aspect arises from the decision of an

earlier Constitution Bench in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram

Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Others

6

. Among others,

one ground urged was of the affidavit in respect of corrupt

practices, accompanying the Election Petition, being not in

the prescribed form. It was held that ‘it is impossible to accept

the contention that a defect in verification which is to be made

6

1963 SCC OnLine SC 129

Page 13 of 15

in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

for the verification of pleadings as required by Clause (c) of

Sub-Section (1) of Section 83, is fatal to the maintainability of

the petition.’ (sic) [Para 8]

23. It was also held that the word ‘copy’ in Sub-Section (3)

of Section 81 does not mean an absolutely exact copy but

means that the copy shall be so true that nobody can, by any

possibility, misunderstand it. The test was held to be whether

‘the copy is a true one and the variation from the original is

calculated to mislead an ordinary person’. Applying that test,

the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the defects

complained of were not such as to mislead the appellant and

therefore, there was no failure to comply with the last part of

sub-section (3) of Section 81.

24. Another argument adressed before the Constitution

Bench was the failure to comply with the proviso to sub-

section (1) of Section 83, deemed to be non-compliance of

Section 81. This contention was repelled, specifically

noticing that the affidavit filed in that case was in the

prescribed form, but due to inexperience, the Oath

Commissioner had made a mistake in the verification portion

Page 14 of 15

of the affidavit. The verification of the corrupt practices,

having been made in the original, by a Commissioner of

Affidavits, as prescribed, if at all, the copy did not contain that

endorsement, it does not necessarily mislead the Returned

Candidate but only entails a verification by the Court as to

whether the same is available in the affidavit filed before

Court. The absence of affirmation is not fatal since it neither

amounts to a misrepresentation nor does it mislead the

Returned Candidate.

25. The Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey

Shyam Ram Kumar

6

holds the field and the three Judge

Benches, to the contrary, need not be looked into by virtue of

the Constitution Bench decision regarding the precedential

value of larger bench decisions, as declared in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others

7

.

26. Admittedly in the present case Form-25 was affirmed

before a Commissioner of Affidavits as available in the

original before Court. Suffice it to request the High Court to

verify and if due attestation of the affirmation on oath, is

7

(2017) 16 SCC 680

Page 15 of 15

available, proceed with the matter on merits and if not

available, not to permit the allegation of corrupt practises to

be urged and proceed with the consideration on the merits

of the other grounds, if any are pleaded. We, hence, find

absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court

and reverse the same. We restore the Election Petition to the

files of the High Court for consideration as required herein

above.

27. The appeal is allowed.

28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.......…….……………………. J.

(J. B. PARDIWALA)

....……….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 24, 2026.