IMPORTANT POINT
Election Petition – Requirement to file affidavit under proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of Representation of People Act, 1951 is not mandatory – It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance.

JUDGMENT

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the decision of the High Court of Manipur¹ [Hereinafter “the High Court”] dated 11.04.2023, whereby the returned candidate’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908²[Hereinafter, “the CPC”], to dismiss the election petition filed by the unsuccessful candidate on the ground that it lacks material particulars and is in violation of mandatory requirements of law was rejected by the High Court. The returned candidate is the Appellant before us.

Facts:

2. The short and precise facts necessary for our consideration are as follows. The Appellant is the returned candidate to the XII Manipur Legislative Assembly, having been elected from the 15- Wangkhei Assembly Constituency. The Respondent No.1, the unsuccessful candidate moved Election Petition No. 24 of 2022³[Hereinafter, “the CPC”] alleging violations under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 84 read with Sections 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951⁴[Hereinafter, “the Act”]. The election petitioner prayed that the election of the Appellant be held void and also to declare him to be the elected candidate. It is important to note that the election petition alleges corrupt practice, in as much as the petitioner pleaded that the returned candidate has not provided the material particulars with respect to a financial transaction relating to financing a loan.

3. In response to the election petition, the Appellant moved two applications under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC and under Section 86 of the Act seeking dismissal of the election petition on the grounds of – (i) non-disclosure of cause of action/triable issue vis-à-vis the alleged corrupt practice committed by the Appellant; (ii) the absence of a concise statement of facts as mandated under Section 83 of the Act; and (iii) for not serving a true self attested copy of the election petition on the returned candidate as provided under Section 81 of the Act. Apart from the above, and more importantly, the Appellant also sought dismissal of the election petition on the ground that the Form-25 affidavit as prescribed under Section 83 of the Act r/w Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961⁵[Hereinafter, the “Rules”] has not been filed along-with the election petition. It was alleged that such an affidavit is mandatory, as the election petition raises allegations of corrupt practice.

4. The High Court, by the order impugned, dismissed the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The High Court observed that – (i) the election petitioner had elaborately pleaded all the material facts and set forth full particulars of all the actions and omissions of the Appellant, sufficient to constitute a case of corrupt practice. The High Court, therefore, concluded that there is a cause of action and triable issues; (ii) the High Court also concluded that the alleged non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Act is incorrect as the election petitioner had effectively attested the election petition. For this purpose, High Court relied on the decisions of this Court in Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1027 and also a decision of the same Court in Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh v. Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithibiraj Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine Mani 30 later came to be upheld by this Court in Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh v. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh, (2017) 2 SCC 487. The High Court observed that although the election petitioner attested the election petition as “true copy of the original” and not as “true copy of the petition”, the same is in compliance with Section 81(3) of the Act.

5. The submission that in all cases involving allegations of corrupt practices, the election petitioner must mandatorily file an affidavit under Section 83(1) of the Act was rejected without much discussion. The High Court simply following the decision of this Court in Lok Prahari through its Gene