Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Madhab Dhada – Appellant
Versus
Parshuram Dhada – Respondent
I.A. No. 129 of 2025 (Arising Out of ELPET No. 04 of 2024)
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.K. Das, P.K. Behera
For the Respondents: Bidyadhar Mishra, T.K. Biswal

Non-filing of an affidavit under Section 83(1)(c) is directory, allowing subsequent compliance; an election petition cannot be dismissed solely for lack of formality if substantial compliance exists.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 80, 80A, 81, 83(1), 86(1) - Election petition - Non-filing of affidavit in Form-25 for allegations of corrupt practice - Earlier applications challenged dismissed; Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, expunging unnecessary observations - Court emphasizes substantial compliance as sufficient, allowing subsequent filing of affidavit; dismissal based on non-compliance with technical requirements is unwarranted, as petition retains relevance despite such absence. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Judicial finality - Application of Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata - Court confirms its earlier findings cannot be revisited or re-agitated unless expressly allowed by a higher forum; maintaining finality in issues aligns with legal principles. (Paras 9-12)

(C) Election Law - The requirement for affidavits in election petitions focusing on corrupt practices, while strict, necessitates that non-compliance be evaluated in context of comprehensive verification and affirmation within the petition itself, rather than rigidly dismissed on procedural grounds. (Paras 34-35)

Table of Content
1. interlocutory application filed under election act. (Para 1)
2. previous interlocutory applications and rejected claims. (Para 2 , 3)
3. arguments around the maintainability of the application. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. analyzing res judicata and findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. criteria for maintaining applications. (Para 10 , 11)
6. court’s conclusion on non-maintainability. (Para 12 , 13)
7. dismissing the application with order. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The present interlocutory application has been filed by the Respondent in the Election Petition praying for dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the alleged ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 80 , 80A, 81 and proviso to Section 83 (1) of the Act read with Rule 94A of the CONDUCT OF ELECTION RULES , 1961. The principal ground urged in the application is that the Election Petitioner has failed to file the affidavit in Form-25 as mandated in support of the allegations relating to corrupt practice.

2. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner of this application had earlier filed I.A. Nos. 83 and 84 of 2024 seeking dismissal of the Election Petition under Section 86 (1) of the Act. Said applications were considered and dismissed by this Court by a common order dated 16.05.2025. The order of this Court was challenged by the respondent before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.17478–17479 of 2025. While declining to interfere with the order of dismissal of the interlocutory applications, the Supreme Court expunged certain observations made therein holding that observation of this Court in paragraphs 34 and 35 were unnecessary for disposal of the application. Relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduce below:

“6. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the observations made in paragraph nos. 34 and 35 were unnecessary for disposal of the Interlocutory Applications, being IA Nos. 83-84 of 2024.

7. While we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the High Court, we expunge the observations on the merits of the election petition as well as the suggestion of the court in these paragraphs. Further the statement that, “The Election Petitioner is granted three weeks’ time to file affidavit in Form 25 failing which, appropriate order shall be passed with regard to maintainability of Election Petition" is also set aside as being unnecessary for disposal of the Interlocutory Applications.”

3. It would be proper to first reproduce paragraphs 34 and 35 of order dtd-16.05.2025 passed by this Court:

“34. Though not argued by the parties, yet this Court deems it proper to mention that the allegations made in the election petition of suppression of criminal antecedents by the respondent amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act. In Paragraphs- 8B and 8C of the Election Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that the Respondent failed to disclose the pending criminal cases against him in the affidavit filed in Form 26. The Supreme Court in the case of Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar; (2015) 3 SCC 467, held that such concealment of criminal cases especially those involving heinous crimes, corruption, or moral turpitude, interferes with the voters’ right to make an informed choice, amounting to undue influence and thus corrupt practice under Section 100(1)(b) of the R.P. Act. However, the question arises whether the absence of an affidavit in Form 25, which is required under the proviso to Section 83 (1)(c) of the R.P. Act for allegations of corrupt practice warrants outright dismissal of the Election Petition. This issue has been addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Thangjam Arun Kumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, (2023) 11 SCR 392, where the Court referring to A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna; (2022) 3 SCC 269, held that the requirement to file an affidavit under (1)(c) is not m