As per case facts, the Respondent filed an election petition challenging the Appellant's election due to alleged corrupt practices, specifically incurring excessive expenditure on fancy banners and failing to disclose ... it. The petition was accompanied by a Challan showing a security deposit but the Appellant contended that the deposit was not made in cash with the Registrar as per rules, and the copy of the petition served lacked a photograph of the banner mentioned in the allegations. The High Court initially overruled these objections, finding substantial compliance for the deposit and deeming the photograph mere evidence, not an integral part of the petition. The case was remitted back for further evidence on the deposit issue, and the High Court reaffirmed its earlier findings. The question arose whether the security deposit complied with the mandatory requirements of the Act and the High Court Rules, and whether the photograph of the banner, alleged as evidence of corrupt practice, was an integral part of the election petition requiring its copy to be served with the petition. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the requirement for making a security deposit is mandatory, but the manner of deposit is directory, and substantial compliance with depositing the amount to the Registrar's credit in the Reserve Bank was sufficient. However, the Court ruled that the photograph describing the fancy banner was an integral part of the election petition's pleadings, as the averment regarding corrupt practice would be incomplete without it. Therefore, failure to supply a copy of the photograph amounted to non-compliance with the Act's provisions, leading to the dismissal of the petition on this specific ground.