1. Election petition challenging election results on grounds of corrupt practices and EVM discrepancies — dispute over maintainability due to non-compliance with Section 83, RP Act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
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.
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.
The Court affirmed that 'substantial compliance' with the Form 25 affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is sufficient. Defective affidavits are generally curable, though the court must determine if such rectification can occur after the limitation period has expired.
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- election law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether non-compliance with the mandatory Form 25 affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c), RP Act, is a fatal defect warranting rejection of the election petition. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. The court noted that while strict compliance was previously required, current jurisprudence favors substantial compliance and allows for the curing of defective affidavits before trial. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c), RP Act, is not strictly mandatory; substantial compliance suffices and defects are curable. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Matter remitted to High Court to enumerate affidavit defects, assess curability, and determine the timing for filing supplementary affidavits. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Is the filing of an affidavit in Form 25 mandatory for election petitions alleging corrupt practices?
While previously viewed as strictly mandatory, the current legal position is that the requirement is not of a mandatory character. Substantial compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act is sufficient to maintain the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
7. What happens if an affidavit filed with an election petition is defective or not in the prescribed Form 25?
A defective affidavit does not automatically render an election petition non-maintainable. The court should afford the petitioner an opportunity to file a corrected affidavit in the prescribed form, ensuring the defect is cured before the trial commences. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. What constitutes substantial compliance regarding the Form 25 affidavit?
Substantial compliance means actual compliance with the essence of the enactment—doing all that is reasonably expected to satisfy the substance of the statute. It requires a fact-based analysis juxtaposing the allegations of corrupt practices against the supporting affidavit. (Para 22 )
9. Can an election petition be rejected solely for non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act?
Total and complete non-compliance with Section 83 may lead to rejection. However, if there is substantial compliance or a curable defect, the petition should not be rejected at the threshold. (Para 15 , 16 )
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 fulfilled the requirement contemplated under the proviso to Section 83 (1)(c) of the RP Act, and therefore the Election Petition could not be rejected solely on this ground; (iii) in any event, any deficiency in the Form 25 affidavit could be cured by affording the Election Petitioner an opportunity to file a separate affidavit; and (iv) the Election Petition disclosed specific allegations containing material facts accompanied by t
