Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from the Gauhati High Court’s order passed under Section 86, Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the Act), whereby the election petition filed by the appellant, an advocate and politician (INC) against the respondent (Lok Sabha MP), the successful candidate elected from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, was rejected due to manner of attestation of the petition copies, absence of attestation in the copy of Form-25, and alleged missing pages, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ., held that defects in the attestation of Form-25 do not warrant the peremptory dismissal of the entire election petition under Section 86 of the Act. Where due attestation is absent, the allegations of corrupt practices may be struck off, while independent grounds challenging the election must be considered on merits. The Court further clarified that no particular form of attestation is prescribed under Section 81(3), and different endorsements may suffice where they convey the same meaning. Consequently, the Court held that there was absolutely no reason to sustain the High Court’s order.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court’s order and restored the election petition to the files of the High Court. It further directed the High Court to verify whether the original Form-25 contained due attestation of the affirmation on oath and
-
if duly attested, proceed with the election petition on merits; and
-
if the required attestation was absent, allegations of corrupt practices should not be permitted to be urged, while the remaining independent grounds, if any, should be considered on their merits.
Also Read: Bombay HC Lays Down Test for Rejection of Election Petitions
Background
In the instant matter, the appellant filed an election petition under Section 80 read with Sections 80-A and 81 of the Act challenging the election of the respondent from No. 7, Karimganj, Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, to the Lok Sabha in the 2024 General Elections.
Subsequently, the respondent then filed a petition under Section 86 of the Act read with Section 151 CPC praying for dismissal of the election petition in Kripanath Mallah v. Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 1911. The 3 objections raised before the High Court against the maintainability of the election petition are:
-
Defect in Form-25: The copy of the affidavit in Form-25, required under Section 94-A, Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (the Rules), served upon the respondent did not indicate that it had been notarised or otherwise duly attested.
-
Defective attestation of petition copies: Pages 1 to 84 bore the endorsement “attested to be true copy of the petition”, whereas pages 85 to 185 bore the endorsement “certified to be true copy”. It was contended that the latter did not constitute attestation in the manner contemplated by Section 81(3) of the Act.
-
Missing pages: Pages 11, 16, 21 and 22 were alleged to be missing from the copy of the election petition served upon the respondent.
The High Court found the attestation to be not proper, did not discuss about the notarisation in Form-25 and negatived the contention regarding the missing pages and rejected the election petition.
Issues for Determination
-
Whether the different endorsements, i.e., “attested to be true copy of the petition” and “certified to be true copy”, on different pages of the copy served upon the returned candidate amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act?
-
Whether the absence of visible notarisation or attestation on the copy of Form-25 supplied to the returned candidate warranted rejection of the election petition?
-
Whether the defect concerning Form-25 attracted the mandatory consequence of dismissal under Section 86 or merely affected the allegations of corrupt practices?
-
Whether the allegation concerning missing pages justified rejection of the election petition?
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant contended that the High Court’s finding regarding attestation was contrary to the settled law, particularly the decision in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375. It was submitted that where the Election Petitioner had signed the pages and taken responsibility for their being true copies, the statutory requirement stood satisfied. No particular form of attestation was prescribed by Section 81(3).
The appellant further contended that Section 86 mandates dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117. Also, any defect concerning the Form-25 affidavit would fall within the proviso to Section 83 and therefore could not result in peremptory dismissal under Section 86.
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondent relied on Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, (1996) 5 SCC 181, and contended that the copy of Form-25 served upon the returned candidate did not disclose the requisite attestation. It was argued that the affidavit alleging corrupt practices had to comply strictly with the statutory requirements and that the defect in Form-25 constituted a defect in presentation under Section 81.
The respondent also contended that the endorsement “certified true copy” could not be treated as an attestation under Section 81(3), unless the documents supplied were certified copies in the legally recognised sense.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court treated the contention related to missing pages, as an afterthought, noting that the respondent had appeared before the Court on several occasions after service of summons but had not raised the objection earlier. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s finding concerning the allegedly missing pages.
The Court noted that Section 81(3) of the Act requires the election petition to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and requires each copy to be attested by the election petitioner under his own signature as a true copy of the petition.
It referred to F.A. Sapa, and noted that the essential requirements are, the requisite number of copies and attestation by the election petitioner himself, under his own signature, accepting responsibility for the copy being a true copy. There is no prescribed particular form of attestation under Section 81(3).
Thus, the Court opined that the two different rubber-stamp endorsements used in the present case conveyed the same essential meaning and did not justify dismissal of the Election Petition. The Court concurred with the findings in F.A. Sapa and consequently reversed the contrary finding of the High Court.
The Court distinguished the Section 81(3) issue from the defect concerning Form-25. It stated that under Rule 94-A of the Rules, Form-25 is required to be signed by the election petitioner and affirmed before, and attested by a Magistrate of the First Class, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths.
However, in the present case, the difficulty was that although the original Form-25 filed before the Court had been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits, the copies supplied to the returned candidate contained no visible indication of such attestation. It also noted that the copies before it did not even contain a printed affirmation with space for the signature and date of the Commissioner of Affidavits.
Further, the Court clarified that judgment in Shipra had not been overruled by the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, (1999) 4 SCC 274. Rather, T.M. Jacob distinguished the factual situation in Shipra. In T.M. Jacob, the copy supplied to the returned candidate contained an endorsement that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified before a Notary. The only thing which was absent was Notary’s name, his address, his stamp and seal. The Constitution Bench considered this materially different from Shipra, where there was no indication of attestation at all. The Court further held that T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian, (2001) 8 SCC 358, had proceeded on an incorrect understanding of T.M. Jacob insofar as it treated Shipra as having been displaced.
The Court relied on Shipra for the proposition that where Form-25 read with Rule 94-A does not comply with the statutory requirement, only those portions of the election petition containing allegations of corrupt practices are to be struck off. Any independent grounds challenging the election are still to be tried and decided on their merits.
The Court held that “the defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86 of the RoP Act”.
The Court also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 129, wherein it was held that a defect in verification under Section 83(1)(c) was not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition. It was also explained that a “copy” under Section 81(3) need not be an absolutely exact copy, the relevant test is whether the copy is sufficiently true so that the returned candidate cannot be misled by it.
Applying this principle, the Court held that an omission in the copy does not necessarily become fatal where it neither amounts to misrepresentation nor misleads the returned candidate.
Decision
The Court found that the Form-25 affidavit in the present case had, in fact, been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits in the original record. Accordingly, the Court directed the High Court to verify whether due attestation of the affirmation on oath was available in the original affidavit. It prescribed two possible consequences:
-
If due attestation is available: the election petition is to proceed on merits, including consideration of the allegations of corrupt practices.
-
If due attestation is not available: the allegations of corrupt practices are not to be permitted to be urged, but the High Court must proceed to consider the merits of the other independent grounds, if any, pleaded in the election petition.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and restored the election petition to the High Court for consideration in accordance with the directions issued herein.
[Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1698, decided on 24-8-2026]
*Judgment Authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Harin Pravinkant Raval, Sr. Adv., Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR, Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Pathak, Adv., Mr. Imran Choudhary, Adv., Ms. Urmi H Raval, Adv., Mr. Siddharth H Raval, Adv., Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv., Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv., Mr. Qazi Muhammad Farhan, Adv., Ms. Taqdees Fatima, Adv., Mr. Azizul Hoque, Adv., Mr. Arijeet Barooah, Adv., Mr. Aamir Husain, Adv., Mr. Ratnadeep Shrawasti, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, AOR, Ms. Shagufta Ansari, Adv., Mr. Rahul Yadav, Adv., Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR, Mr. Devansh Rai, Adv., Ms. Teesha, Adv.
