The requirement under the election law for a petitioner to attest each copy of an election petition as a true copy under their own signature is a mandatory procedural safeguard. Failure to strictly comply with this attestation requirement is not a curable irregularity and warrants the summary dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant application has been filed under Section 86 of the Representation of the People (ROP) Act, 1951 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for dismissal of the Election Petition. The connected Election Petition has been filed by the opposite party, as election petitioner under Section 80 read with Sections 80A and 81 of the ROP Act 1951, challenging the election of the present applicant from No. 7, Karimganj, Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, to the Lok Sabha in the General Elections held in the year 2024.

2. In the Election Petition, this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2024 had issued summons whereafter, the present applicant, as respondent, had appeared and had subsequently filed the present application on 28.10.2024. The principal ground of filing this application for dismissal of the Election Petition is that the presentation of the same is not in accordance with law. It has been contended that the Election Petition has been filed in violation of the procedure laid down in Sections 81 and 83 of the ROP Act. It is also the case of the applicant that in the copy served upon them, there were four pages missing and therefore, the applicant has been denied of a reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

3. I have heard Sri D Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P Nayak and Shri SK Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant-Returned Candidate. I have also heard Shri KP Pathak, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite party-election petitioner.

4. Shri Saikia, learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 86 of the ROP Act which deals with trial of Election Petitions. He has submitted that under the aforesaid provision of law, the High Court shall dismiss an Election Petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or 82 or 117. He has submitted that under Section 81, the manner of presentation of an Election Petition has been laid down, whereas Section 82 deals with the parties to such petition and Section 83 with the contents of the petition. He has contended that in the present Election Petition filed, the requirement of verification has not been complied with.

5. He has also highlighted that in the copy of the Election Petition served upon the applicant, the affidavit which is required to be filed under Section 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), there is no notarization. He has submitted that the affidavit is required to be filed as per Form-25 in which, there is no notarization.

6. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to various pages, namely, 119, 125, 139, 143, 153, 157, 160, 163, 166, 169, 172, 174, 176, 183, 186, 189, 198, 205, 208, 210, 213, 214, 215 and 217 and has submitted that in those pages, the attestation is missing. He has clarified that though there is an endorsement of being certified, there is a vast difference between the requirement of certification and attestation. He has submitted that while pleadings are required to be attested, the documents have only been certified and not attested and under Section 81(3) of the ROP Act, there is a requirement