Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

"The absence of affirmation is not fatal since it neither amounts to a misrepresentation nor does it mislead the Returned Candidate." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling delivered on August 24, 2026, held that the absence of a notary's endorsement or attestation on the copy of a Form-25 affidavit served upon a returned candidate does not warrant the summary dismissal of an election petition at the threshold under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that so long as the original affidavit filed before the court complies with the statutory affirmation on oath and the copy does not mislead the returned candidate, the petition cannot be thrown out in limine.

The appellant, an unsuccessful candidate, had filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in Assam during the 2024 Lok Sabha general elections. The High Court rejected the election petition at the threshold under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on the ground that the copy served upon the returned candidate lacked proper attestation and notarization in the Form-25 affidavit. Aggrieved by the peremptory dismissal, the election petitioner approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether an omission to reproduce the notary or oath commissioner's endorsement on the copy of the Form-25 affidavit served upon the respondent constitutes a non-compliance of Section 81(3) attracting summary dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court was also called upon to determine whether different rubber stamps utilized on petition copies affect the validity of true-copy attestation.

No Specific Form Prescribed For True Copy Attestation Under Section 81(3)

Dealing first with the objection regarding variation in rubber stamps on the served copy of the election petition, the bench overturned the High Court's finding. The Court noted that pages 1 to 84 bore the stamp 'attested to be true copy of the petition' while pages 85 to 185 bore 'certified to be true copy', both signed by the election petitioner.

Reiterating the settled principle laid down in F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991), the bench held that all Section 81(3) requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner under their own signature, taking responsibility that the served copy is a true copy of the original. The bench emphasized that the two rubber stamps employed convey identical meaning and fully satisfy the statutory requirement since no rigid formula of attestation is mandated by statute.

Defects Under Section 83 Do Not Entail Peremptory Dismissal Under Section 86

Addressing the controversy surrounding the unendorsed Form-25 affidavit alleging corrupt practices, the Supreme Court undertook a meticulous review of conflicting precedents. The bench underscored that Section 86 of the Act mandates peremptory dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82, or 117, whereas defects in affidavits verifying corrupt practices fall strictly within the ambit of the proviso to Section 83(1)(c).

The Court recalled that even in Dr. Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (1996), it was recognized that if an affidavit fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the proper course is only to strike off the allegations of corrupt practices, leaving independent grounds to be tried and adjudicated on merits rather than throwing out the entire petition.

Constitution Bench Precedent In Murarka Radhey Shyam Holds The Field

The bench firmly grounded its decision on the Constitution Bench judgment in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore (1963), which settled that a defect in verification under Section 83(1)(c) is not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition. The Court noted that under the doctrine of precedent reaffirmed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017), the larger Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam decisively governs the issue.

The Court reiterated the authoritative test formulated by the Constitution Bench that the term 'copy' under Section 81(3) does not mandate an absolutely exact carbon copy, but rather one so true that nobody can possibly misunderstand it, with the true inquiry being whether any variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person.

Absence Of Notary Seal On Copy Neither Misleads Nor Amounts To Misrepresentation

Applying this touchstone to the facts at hand, the Supreme Court noted that the original Form-25 affidavit placed before the High Court was duly affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits. The mere omission of the Commissioner's verification and seal on the served copy did not cause prejudice or mislead the returned candidate.

The bench held that such an omission merely calls for verification by the High Court from its original records. If the original affidavit is duly attested on oath, the court must proceed to try the petition on merits, and if not, only the corrupt practice allegations may be excluded while other pleaded grounds are tried.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's dismissal order and restored the Election Petition to the file for fresh consideration on merits. The ruling firmly reiterates that technical flaws in copies served on respondents cannot be weaponized to shut out election disputes at the threshold when substantial statutory requirements have been met in the original court pleadings.

Date of Decision: August 24, 2026