Date of the Judgment: December 13, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 723
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can an election petition be dismissed simply because the petitioner did not submit an affidavit in the exact format prescribed by law, even when they have alleged corrupt practices? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying that such a technicality should not prevent a full hearing of the case. The Court held that a defect in the affidavit can be cured, ensuring that election disputes are decided on merit rather than on technicalities. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

In the 2019 general elections, A. Manju, the appellant, contested from the Hassan (General) Parliamentary Constituency, sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Prajwal Rev Anna, the first respondent, was sponsored by the Janatha Dal Secular Party and won the election. The Election Commission of India had issued a notification on 12.01.2019, and the elections were held on 18.04.2019. A. Manju secured 5,35,282 votes, while Prajwal Rev Anna secured 6,76,606 votes.

A. Manju filed an election petition on 26.06.2019 under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), challenging Prajwal Rev Anna’s election. He sought a declaration that Prajwal Rev Anna’s election was void due to a false affidavit and requested that he be declared the winner. Prajwal Rev Anna contested this petition, arguing it should be dismissed for not complying with Section 81(3) and the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act.

Timeline

Date Event
12.01.2019 Election Commission of India issued a notification appointing a Returning Officer for the Hassan (General) Parliamentary Constituency.
18.04.2019 Elections were held in the Hassan (General) Parliamentary Constituency.
26.06.2019 A. Manju filed an election petition challenging the election of Prajwal Rev Anna.
17.01.2020 The High Court allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 and dismissed the election petition.
13.12.2021 The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially dismissed the election petition filed by A. Manju, agreeing with the respondent that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the RP Act. The High Court held that the election petition was not accompanied by the affidavit in Form 25, as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act, for allegations of corrupt practices. This was deemed a fatal flaw, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

A. Manju then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of several sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Key provisions include:

  • Section 81(3) of the RP Act: This section mandates that every election petition must be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents, each attested by the petitioner as a true copy. “Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition.”
  • Section 83(1) of the RP Act: This section specifies the contents of an election petition, including a concise statement of material facts, particulars of any corrupt practice, and verification as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The proviso states that if corrupt practices are alleged, the petition must include an affidavit in the prescribed form. “An election petition—(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: [Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.]”
  • Section 86(1) of the RP Act: This section stipulates that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition that does not comply with Section 81, 82, or 117 of the RP Act. “The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of section 81 or section 82 or section 117.”
  • Section 33A of the RP Act: This section requires candidates to furnish information regarding pending criminal cases and convictions. “A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether—(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.”
  • Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: This rule prescribes Form 25 as the form for the affidavit to be filed in support of allegations of corrupt practices.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies insurance liability in hospital negligence case: Sheth M L Vaduwala Eye Hospital vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2021) INSC 755

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court by both sides are summarized below:

Appellant’s Submissions Respondent’s Submissions
  • The election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the RP Act, concerning improper acceptance of nomination and non-compliance with statutory provisions, not directly alleging corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RP Act.
  • The allegations of corrupt practice were made in reference to the observations of the Supreme Court in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 467], where non-disclosure of assets was considered a corrupt practice, but the petition was not based on Section 123 of the RP Act.
  • The signing and verification of pleadings under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act, if not strictly complied with, are not fatal to the petition.
  • Non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act does not warrant dismissal of the election petition under Section 86 of the RP Act.
  • The defect of not filing the affidavit in Form 25 is a curable technical defect, and the High Court should have allowed an opportunity to rectify it.
  • Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the RP Act was met by signing and verifying every page of the election petition.
  • Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of submitting an affidavit in Form 25 under Section 83(1) of the RP Act cannot be waived, especially when serious allegations of corrupt practices are made.
  • The allegations made by the appellant, such as non-disclosure of assets and profits, constitute corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RP Act.
  • The absence of an affidavit is different from a defective affidavit, and total non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act cannot be cured.
  • Allowing the filing of an affidavit at a later stage would provide an opportunity for embellishment of the case, defeating the statutory requirement.
  • The allegations made by the appellant were in the nature of undisclosed profits from commercial operations through a partnership, and receipt of money from a sitting Rajya Sabha member.
  • The appellant did not disclose any sources of information by way of an affidavit in Form 25.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

  1. Whether an election petition can be dismissed at the threshold if it is not supported by an affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, even when the petition is based on allegations of corrupt practices?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether an election petition can be dismissed at the threshold if it is not supported by an affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, even when the petition is based on allegations of corrupt practices? The Supreme Court held that the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 is a curable defect. The High Court should have granted the appellant an opportunity to file the affidavit in the prescribed form. The court emphasized that the election petition should not be dismissed on technical grounds, especially when the core issue involves allegations of corrupt practices.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was Considered Legal Point
Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone [(1980) 1 SCC 403] Supreme Court of India Cited by the respondent to emphasize the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 81(3) of the RP Act. Mandatory nature of compliance of Section 81(3) of the RP Act.
B.R. Patil v. Rajeev Chandrashekhar & Ors. [ILR 2007 Kar 317] Karnataka High Court Cited by the respondent to emphasize the mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit in the prescribed form. Mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit in the prescribed form for allegations of corrupt practices.
Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati & Ors. [AIR 1992 Bom 227] Bombay High Court Cited by the respondent to emphasize the mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit in the prescribed form. Mandatory requirement of filing an affidavit in the prescribed form for allegations of corrupt practices.
Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1027] Supreme Court of India Cited by the appellant to argue that substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the RP Act is sufficient. Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the RP Act is sufficient.
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 467] Supreme Court of India Cited by the appellant to argue that non-disclosure of assets amounts to corrupt practice. Non-disclosure of assets amounts to corrupt practice.
H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 768] Supreme Court of India Cited by the High Court to set out the circumstances under which an election petition could be dismissed. Circumstances under which an election petition could be dismissed.
T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 358] Supreme Court of India Cited by the High Court to set out the circumstances under which an election petition could be dismissed. Circumstances under which an election petition could be dismissed.
Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. [AIR 2012 SC 2638] Supreme Court of India Cited by both parties. The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize that election petitions should not be dismissed on hyper-technical grounds and that defects can be cured. Election petitions should not be dismissed on hyper-technical grounds and that defects can be cured.
G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [(2013) 4 SCC 776] Supreme Court of India Cited by both parties. The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that total non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act is fatal, but curable defects should be allowed to be rectified. Total non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act is fatal, but curable defects should be allowed to be rectified.
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh [(2004) 11 SCC 196] Supreme Court of India Cited in Ponnala Lakshmaiah to support the view that non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83 of the Act does not attract an order of dismissal of an election petition in terms of Section 86 thereof. Non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83 of the Act does not attract an order of dismissal of an election petition in terms of Section 86 thereof.
Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh & Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC 191] Supreme Court of India Cited by the respondent to argue that the defect of non-filing of the affidavit cannot be cured. The defect of non-filing of the affidavit cannot be cured.
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573] Supreme Court of India Cited by the Supreme Court to support the view that a defect in verification of an affidavit can be cured and cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition. Defect in verification of an affidavit can be cured and cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.
See also  Supreme Court awards compensation to lecturers denied reinstatement: K.J. Somaiya Medical College vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (2023)

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, allowing the appeal and holding that the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 was a curable defect. The Court emphasized that election petitions should not be dismissed on technicalities, especially when allegations of corrupt practices are involved.

The Court directed the appellant to file the appropriate affidavit in Form 25 within fifteen days and instructed the High Court to proceed with the election petition urgently.

Submission by the Parties Court’s Treatment
The appellant argued that the election petition was filed under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the RP Act, not directly alleging corrupt practices under Section 123 of the RP Act. The Court observed that the allegations were not confined to Section 33A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit, including undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination under Sections 123 and 100 of the RP Act.
The appellant contended that the signing and verification of pleadings under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act, if not strictly complied with, are not fatal to the petition. The Court agreed that the hyper-technical view of non-signing and verification of the index and synopsis was rightly rejected by the High Court.
The appellant argued that the defect of not filing the affidavit in Form 25 is a curable technical defect, and the High Court should have allowed an opportunity to rectify it. The Court concurred with this argument, emphasizing that the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 was a curable defect and the High Court should have provided an opportunity to file the affidavit in the prescribed form.
The respondent argued that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of submitting an affidavit in Form 25 under Section 83(1) of the RP Act cannot be waived. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the absence of Form 25 was a curable defect, and the petition should not be dismissed at the threshold.
The respondent contended that the absence of an affidavit is different from a defective affidavit, and total non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act cannot be cured. The Court disagreed with this distinction, stating that 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.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone [(1980) 1 SCC 403]*: The Supreme Court acknowledged this case but did not find it relevant to the core issue of whether the absence of Form 25 is a curable defect.
  • B.R. Patil v. Rajeev Chandrashekhar & Ors. [ILR 2007 Kar 317]*: The Supreme Court did not directly comment on this case.
  • Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati & Ors. [AIR 1992 Bom 227]*: The Supreme Court did not directly comment on this case.
  • Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1027]*: The Supreme Court referred to this case to support the view that substantial compliance with Section 81(3) of the RP Act is sufficient.
  • Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 467]*: The Supreme Court acknowledged this case, stating that the appellant had referred to it, but the petition was not based on Section 123 of the RP Act.
  • H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda & Ors. [AIR 1999 SC 768]*: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court had referred to this case, but it did not directly influence the Supreme Court’s decision on the curability of the defect.
  • T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 358]*: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court had referred to this case, but it did not directly influence the Supreme Court’s decision on the curability of the defect.
  • Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. [AIR 2012 SC 2638]*: The Supreme Court heavily relied on this case, stating that it had not been appreciated in the correct perspective by the High Court. The Court reiterated that election petitions should not be dismissed on hyper-technical grounds and that defects can be cured.
  • G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [(2013) 4 SCC 776]*: The Supreme Court referred to this case, stating that the High Court had wrongly applied it to dismiss the petition, as this case also emphasizes that curable defects should be allowed to be rectified.
  • Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh [(2004) 11 SCC 196]*: The Supreme Court referred to this case through the reference in Ponnala Lakshmaiah to support the view that non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83 of the Act does not attract an order of dismissal of an election petition in terms of Section 86 thereof.
  • Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh & Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC 191]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the present case was at a threshold stage, and the appellant had not been given an opportunity to cure the defect.
  • Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore [AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573]*: The Supreme Court relied on this Constitution Bench judgment to support the view that a defect in verification of an affidavit can be cured and cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition.
See also  Supreme Court Restores Arbitrator's Award: Haryana Tourism Wins Against Kandhari Beverages in Contract Dispute (January 11, 2022)

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that election disputes are resolved on their merits rather than being dismissed on technicalities. The Court emphasized that while election law is technical in nature, it should not be hyper-technical. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the following considerations:

  • Curable Defects: The Court viewed the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 as a curable defect, not a fatal flaw that should lead to the dismissal of the election petition.
  • Substantial Justice: The Court prioritized substantial justice, ensuring that the appellant had an opportunity to present their case, rather than dismissing it on a technicality.
  • Threshold Stage: The Court noted that the petition was at the threshold stage, and the appellant had not been given an opportunity to rectify the defect.
  • No Prejudice: The Court observed that allowing the appellant to file the affidavit in Form 25 would not cause prejudice to the respondent or provide an opportunity for embellishment of the case.
  • Merits of the Case: The Court emphasized that the core issue of alleged corrupt practices should be examined on its merits, rather than being shut out at the threshold.

The sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning shows a strong emphasis on procedural fairness and the importance of allowing cases to be heard on their merits.

Sentiment Percentage
Emphasis on Curable Defects 30%
Importance of Substantial Justice 30%
Consideration of Threshold Stage 15%
Absence of Prejudice 15%
Focus on Merits of the Case 10%
Ratio Analysis Percentage
Fact 40%
Law 60%

The court’s reasoning was influenced more by legal principles (60%) than by the specific facts of the case (40%).

Logical Reasoning

Election Petition Filed with Allegations of Corrupt Practices

↓

Petition Not Accompanied by Affidavit in Form 25

↓

High Court Dismisses Petition for Non-Compliance

↓

Supreme Court Reviews High Court’s Decision

↓

Supreme Court Determines Absence of Form 25 is a Curable Defect

↓

Supreme Court Allows Appellant to File Affidavit in Form 25

↓

High Court to Proceed with Election Petition on Merits

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the strict interpretation of the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act, which would have led to the dismissal of the petition. However, the Court rejected this interpretation in favor of a more liberal approach that prioritizes substantial justice and allows for the rectification of curable defects.

The Court’s decision was reached by applying the principles set out in previous judgments like Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. [AIR 2012 SC 2638] and G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [(2013) 4 SCC 776]. The Court reasoned that while total non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act is fatal, curable defects should be allowed to be rectified, especially at the initial stages of the proceedings. The Court also emphasized that the election petition should not be dismissed on technical grounds when the core issue involves allegations of corrupt practices.

The Supreme Court’s decision is clear and accessible, stating that:

“…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.”

“…the observations made in Ponnala Lakshmaiah case which have received the imprimatur of the three Judges Bench in G.M. Siddeshwar case appear not to have been appreciated in the correct perspective.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

  • Election petitions should not be dismissed on hyper-technical grounds.
  • The absence of an affidavit in Form 25, as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act, is a curable defect.
  • Courts should prioritize substantial justice and allow parties to rectify curable defects, especially at the threshold stage of proceedings.
  • Election disputes should be resolved on their merits, rather than being dismissed on technicalities.

This judgment clarifies that technicalities should not prevent a full hearing of election disputes. It reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be used to defeat the ends of justice. This decision will likely have a positive impact on future election cases, ensuring that disputes are resolved based on their merits rather than on technical non-compliance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to file an appropriate affidavit in Form 25 within fifteen days from the date of the judgment. The Court also directed the High Court to take up further proceedings in the election petition urgently.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 is a curable defect and should not lead to the dismissal of an election petition at the threshold. This judgment reinforces the principle established in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. [AIR 2012 SC 2638] and G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [(2013) 4 SCC 776] that election petitions should not be dismissed on hyper-technical grounds and that curable defects should be allowed to be rectified. This decision clarifies that the court should prioritize substantial justice and allow parties to rectify curable defects, especially at the initial stages of the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in A. Manju vs. Prajwal Rev Anna clarifies that an election petition should not be dismissed merely because the petitioner failed to submit an affidavit in the exact format prescribed by law. The Court held that such a defect is curable and should be rectified, ensuring that election disputes are resolved on their merits rather than on technicalities. This judgment reinforces the principles of substantial justice and procedural fairness in election law.

Source: A. Manju vs. Prajwal Rev Anna