Supreme Court reverses High Court's dismissal of election petition in Assam

The core issue is whether defects in the attestation of the petition copies and the Form-25 affidavit warrant peremptory dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury; Respondents: Kripanath Mallah & Ors.; Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

What the court decided

• The Court reversed the High Court's finding that the attestation of the Election Petition copies was improper, holding that different rubber stamps conveying the same meaning suffice under Section 81(3).
• The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the contention regarding missing pages was an afterthought and not a valid ground for dismissal.
• The Court found that the Form-25 affidavit copies supplied to the respondent lacked any semblance of notarization or attestation by the prescribed authority.
• The Court held that the defect in Form-25 is identical to the situation in Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, where strict compliance is required for allegations of corrupt practices.
• The Court distinguished the present case from T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, noting that the latter involved a copy with an endorsement of affirmation, whereas the present case has no such indication.
• The Court noted that while the defect in Form-25 does not entail peremptory dismissal of the entire petition under Section 86, the parts containing allegations of corrupt practices must be struck off, and other independent grounds, if any, should be tried on merits.

Also in the document

• The Court explicitly stated that Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal was never overruled by T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, but rather distinguished based on the specific facts of the attestation.
• The Court observed that the three-judge bench decision in T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian erred in its understanding of the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob.
• The Court applied the test from Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, stating that a copy must be true enough that no ordinary person could be misled by variations from the original.