The absence of an affidavit in Form 25 does not lead to automatic dismissal of an election petition, provided there is substantial compliance with procedural requirements, and any defects noted are curable.

ORDER :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

This application was filed by the sole Respondent of the Election Petition under Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 14 of the C.P.C. and Sections 81, 82, 83, 86 and 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act) with a prayer to strike out the pleadings under Paragraphs-5 to 14 and 14-A to 14-L of the Election Petition and to reject/dismiss the Election Petition in its entirety at the very threshold under Section 86 of the Act. Several grounds justifying the reliefs claimed were cited. The Interlocutory Application was heard extensively and by order dated 21.3.2025, this Court, finding no merit therein, dismissed the same. However, the Election Petitioner was granted three weeks’ time to file an affidavit in Form 25.

2. Being aggrieved, the sole Respondent carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11017/2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No.12491/2025). By judgment passed on 22.8.2025, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by this Court on certain issues specified in the order. For immediate reference, the direction of the Supreme Court as enumerated in Paragraph-24 of the judgment is reproduced below;

“24. In light of the above discussion, the matter stands remitted to the High Court with the following directions and conclusions:

a. The High Court is requested to identify and enumerate the defects in the Form 25 affidavit and assess whether such defects, if any, were curable. To this end, the High Court may consider the following as preliminary issues:

i. Whether the affidavit in the instant case, alleging ‘corrupt practices,’ is defective and does not satisfy the requirement under Form 25?

ii. If defective, does it substantially satisfy the requirements of Form 25, and can it be so construed in accordance with the decisions of this Court cited in paragraphs 15 to 17 above?

iii. If the defect in the Form 25 affidavit could be cured, would it be mandatory to file a supplementary affidavit within the period of limitation?

iv. Whether the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal possesses the power to condone the delay and permit the Election Petitioner to file the affidavit, in the prescribed format of Form 25, beyond the period of limitation?

b. Additionally, we allow the proposals submitted by the parties and request the High Court to strike out the portions of the pleadings that they have mutually agreed to expunge from the record.

c. Upon striking out of such pleadings, the High Court shall afford the parties reasonable time to carry out the consequential amendments to the Election Petition and the Written Statement(s). Thereafter, the High Court may proceed to frame issues on the merits of the matter.”

3. Before proceeding to determine the above issues, it would be apt to refer to certain other observations of the Supreme Court as contained in Paragraph-23 of the Judgment, which is reproduced below;

“23. In view of these apparent deficiencies in the Impugned Order, namely, (i) to specify the extent of compliance with the High Court Rules; (ii) to enumerate the defects necessitating rectification; and (iii) to examine whether the principles of substantial compliance have been followed or not, we deem it appropriate to remit the case to the High Court with a request to answer these questions and re-determine whether these were curable defects which could be permitted to be rectified. We are inclined to remand the matter also for the reason that the Hi