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

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1237

SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Tankadhar Tripathy – Appellant
Versus
Dipali Das – Respondent

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.

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