Tankadhar Tripathy vs Dipali Das - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1237

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1237

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Tankadhar Tripathy – Appellant
Versus
Dipali Das – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11017 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12491/2025)
Decided On : 22-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Milind Rai, Adv. Mr. Amarpal Singh Dua, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K Parameshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tarani Kanta Biswal, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv. Mr. Gurkaranbir Singh, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 83(1)(c) - Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 - Election Petition - Computation of substantial compliance - Appeal concerning procedural requisites for election petitions and sufficiency of Form 25 affidavit - The Appellant was elected by a margin of 1,333 votes; Respondent challenged the election citing non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and discrepancies in voting - The High Court ruled that the Election Petition's affidavit substantially complied with legal requirements and permitted the Respondent to rectify deficiencies. (Paras 2-26)

(B) Election Petition - Maintainability - Non-compliance with procedural requirements - Court assesses whether such non-compliance is fatal to maintainability. (Paras 12-24)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was declared elected in the Jharsuguda Assembly, but the Respondent filed an Election Petition contesting the election based on allegations of corrupt practices and procedural defects.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to allow rectification of affidavit defects is upheld, mandating further examination of issues surrounding substantial compliance in election petitions.

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the affidavit requirements under Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act is fatal to the Election Petition's maintainability?

Ratio Decidendi: The law evolved indicates that while strict compliance is not required, substantial compliance must be shown, and any defects in affidavits are curable. (Para 24)

Result: Appeal disposed of, matters remitted to the High Court for further examination.

Table of Content
1. procedural requirements for election petitions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments regarding the election petition's validity and compliance. (Para 9 , 10)
3. establishing the standards for compliance in election petitions. (Para 12)
4. analysis of substantial compliance with procedural rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22)
5. remit to high court for further examination. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal revolves around certain procedural and technical requisites, generally ancillary to the filing of election petitions, which are mandated in Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). In particular, this matter pertains to the degree of ‘substantial compliance’ with the prescribed Form 25 affidavit, as encapsulated in the proviso to Section 83 (1)(c) of the RP Act read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

A. FACTS

3. Before we foray into analysing the legal aspects involved in dissecting the Appellant’s claim, it is incumbent upon us to briefly chronicle the factual background giving rise to the instant appeal.

4. The Governor of the State of Odisha issued a notification on 26.04.2024 to hold General Elections to constitute a new State Assembly. The election schedule was released, and both the Appellant and the Respondent filed their nominations from the 07-Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency. The polling took place on 20.05.2024, followed by the counting on 04.06.2024. The Appellant was eventually declared elected as the returned candidate by a margin of 1,333 votes.

5. The Respondent, having gotten the second highest votes, filed ELPET No. 7 of 2024 (Election Petition) before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (High Court), seeking the Appellant’s election to be declared void and set aside. The Respondent in her Election Petition urged two distinct grounds of challenge: (i) that the Appellant failed to make a complete and truthful disclosure of his assets, liabilities, and criminal antecedents, and further omitted to publish particulars of such criminal antecedents in a newspaper having wide circulation, thereby indulging in ‘corrupt practices’ as defined in Section 123 of the RP Act; and (ii) that there existed discrepancies in the Control Unit Identification Numbers of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which allegedly rendered 6,313 votes as void. It was thus contended that, since the number of such votes far exceeded the margin of victory, the result of the election stood materially affected.

6. The Appellant, in turn, objected to the maintainability of the Election Petition on the sheet anchor of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying for its rejection at the very threshold. Pursuantly, the Appellant urged the following grounds: (i) non-joinder of necessary parties, including a third candidate who had contested the election; (ii) Vague, evasive, and vexatious averments in the Election Petition; and (iii) non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of filing the affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed in the proviso to Section 83 (1)(c) of the RP Act. The Appellant urged that these defects were fatal to the maintainability of the Election Petition. In the alternative, the Appellant sought an order under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, to strike out the portions of the pleadings mainly pertaining to the allegations of ‘corrupt practices’ contained in the Election Petition.

7. Upon consideration of the competing claims, the High Court, vide its order dated 21.03.2025 (Impugned Order), dismissed the Appellant’s application(s) and granted the Respondent three weeks’ time to file an affidavit in the prescribed Form 25. The High Court opined that: (i) it was not mandatory to file a separate or second affidavit, specifically in relation to the allegations of ‘corrupt practices,’ along with the Election Petition; (ii) the solitary affidavit filed and verified, substantially ful