Election Petition Under Section 100 RP Act Must Be Supported By Mandatory Affidavit In Form 94A For Corrupt Practice Allegations: Madras High Court

"The proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act mandates that such an allegation be accompanied by an affidavit in Form 94A, and no such affidavit is filed in the instant case." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 16, 2026, held that an election petition containing allegations of corrupt practice must be accompanied by a mandatory affidavit in Form 94A, and the failure to do so renders the pleadings liable to be struck off.

A bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the statutory requirement under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is non-negotiable and that the court has a duty to act at the threshold to prevent vexatious litigation.

The election petition was filed by an unsuccessful candidate challenging the election of the returned candidate for the No. 63 – Tiruvannamalai Assembly Constituency in the 2026 General Elections. The petitioner alleged various irregularities, including improper scrutiny of nominations, polling day disruptions, and counting day misconduct, claiming these materially affected the election result. The returned candidate sought the rejection of the petition and the striking off of its paragraphs, contending that the pleadings were vague and lacked the necessary material particulars required by law.

The primary question before the court was whether the election petition disclosed a valid cause of action as per the mandates of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court also examined whether the failure to file an affidavit in Form 94A for allegations of corrupt practice necessitated the striking off of those specific pleadings.

Requirement of Material Facts

The court emphasized that an election petition must contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies to declare an election void. The court noted that while "material particulars" may be furnished later, the omission of a single "material fact" is fatal to the cause of action. The court underscored that the petition cannot be a fishing expedition for a roving enquiry.

"The principle of strict scrutiny shall apply in an election petition, and meaningless litigation should be aborted at the threshold."

Mandatory Affidavit for Corrupt Practice

Regarding the allegations against government officials—specifically claims that they favored the returned candidate—the court categorized these as assertions of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Act. The bench held that the proviso to Section 83(1) is mandatory. Since the petitioner failed to file the required affidavit in Form 94A, those specific allegations could not be sustained and were ordered to be struck off.

"The verification appended to the Election Petition does not disclose which of the 62 paragraphs verified are based on the first respondent’s personal knowledge and which are based on information."

Vagueness and Lack of Particulars

On the allegations regarding EVM/VVPAT irregularities and counting day conduct, the court observed that the petitioner failed to provide specific details. Even if the allegations of mobile phone usage were taken as true, the court held that they did not demonstrate a material effect on the election outcome. Consequently, the court found these pleadings to be unnecessary and vexatious.

"The Election Petition, though it makes multiple and several allegations, does not contain a clinching material fact disclosing a triable issue to proceed."

Rejection of the Petition

The court ultimately determined that once the averments lacking material facts and those pertaining to corrupt practices without the mandatory affidavit were struck off, nothing of substance remained. Concluding that the petition failed to disclose any triable issue or cause of action, the court allowed the applications of the returned candidate. The election petition was consequently rejected in its entirety, with the court directing the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026