Procedural defects in election petitions are curable, and substantial compliance with affidavit requirements suffices to maintain the petition's validity.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Election Petition has been filed by the present Opposite Party No.1, Kishore Kumar Nayak challenging the election of the present Petitioner, Byomkesh Ray, in the General Election, 2024 from 47- Chandbali Assembly Constituency citing several grounds. The present I.A. was filed by the returned candidate, Byomkesh Ray, under Section 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of CPC praying to strike out the pleadings contained in Paragraphs 6-A to 6-G and for rejection/dismissal of the Election Petition in its entirety at the very threshold in terms of Section 86 of the Act.

2. The I.A. was heard extensively by this Court and disposed of vide judgment dtd.8.8.2025, inter alia, allowing it in part by striking out the pleadings under Paragraph 6- E of the Election Petition. It was held that the Election Petition as laid, discloses a valid cause of action and involves triable issues for which it would not be proper to throw away the same at the threshold without taking it to trial.

3. Said judgment was challenged by the returned candidate, Byomkesh Ray, before the Supreme Court in SLP(c) No.28207/2025. After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court, vide order dtd.14.10.2025 remitted the matter for decision on a limited issue observing as follows:

“5. During the course of hearing, we find that one of the issues that arises for consideration is whether the affidavit subsequently filed by respondent no.1 – election petitioner, purportedly in Form 25, satisfies the statutory requirements and if so, whether such affidavit could be permitted to be filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing of an Election Petition. Such an issue directly came up for consideration before us in C.A. No.11017/2025 (Tankadhar Tripathi vs. Dipali Das – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1793). There, after formulating the question in paragraph 18 of the report, it was briefly answered, in the operative part of the judgment, thereby remanding the case with the object to have the advantage of the opinion of the High Court on that issue as well as other related questions.

XX

XX

XX

7. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court dated 08.08.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for re-determination of the issue, as observed above.”

4. At the outset, a doubt having arisen as to whether the judgment passed by this Court in the I.A. having been set aside, it is necessary to hear the I.A. afresh on all the grounds urged therein, the parties advanced their arguments on this point.

5. Mr. U.K.Samal, learned counsel appearing for the returned candidate, fairly contends that though the judgment of this Court was set aside, but if the order of the Supreme Court is read as a whole, coupled with the specific issue identified for determination by this Court afresh, it would be clear that the earlier findings stand confirmed.

6. Mr. N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the Election Petitioner also makes similar arguments as Mr. Samal and submits that the matter has been remitted only to decide the issue as an identical matter was also remitted to this Court in the case ( Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1793)

7. Mr. B. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that out of the seven grounds raised by the returned candidate in the I.A. for determination, only the ground relating to non-filing of affidavit in Form-25 has been remitted for redetermination. Therefore, the findings of this Court on the other grounds must be he