Failure to Comply with Mandatory Attestation Requirements Leads to Dismissal of Election Petition Under Section 81 (3) ROP Act: Gauhati High Court

In a significant judicial development concerning the sanctity of election processes, the Gauhati High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha election results for the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in Assam. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi ruled that failure to strictly adhere to the mandatory attestation requirements under Section 81 (3) of the Representation of the People (ROP) Act, 1951 constitutes grounds for the immediate dismissal of an election plea.

A Challenge to Parliamentary Mandate

The case arose following the 2024 General Elections, where the result for the Karimganj constituency was challenged by the election petitioner, Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, against the declared winner, Kripanath Mallah. Mr. Mallah, the Returned Candidate, filed an interlocutory application seeking the dismissal of the petition at the threshold, alleging that the service copies provided to him violated procedural statutes, particularly regarding attestation and the inclusion of verified documents.

The Procedural Battleground

The Returned Candidate contended that the copies served upon him lacked essential attestation signatures on several pages, failed to include notarized affidavits as required by Form-25, and were missing four distinct pages. The core of his argument rested on the mandatory nature of Section 81 (3) of the ROP Act, which dictates that every copy of an election petition must be attested by the petitioner under their own signature to be a "true copy" of the original.

Counsel for the respondent countered that the defects—specifically the distinction between "attested" and "certified" endorsements—were hyper-technical and amounted to substantial compliance, asserting that no real prejudice had been caused to the Returned Candidate.

The Legal Analysis: Strict Compliance vs. Substantial Compliance

Justice Medhi, while deliberating the matter, navigated through several landmark precedents, including Dr. (Smti.) Shipra vs. Shantilal Khoiwal and M. Karunanidhi vs. HV Hande . The court drew a firm line between the discretionary nature of civil pleadings and the rigid requirements of electoral law.

The judgment clarified that while recent cases like Kimneo Haokip Hangshing addressed the triability of petitions, the present dispute hinged on the "presentation" phase of the petition. Under Section 86 (1) of the ROP Act, the High Court is statutorily mandated to dismiss a petition that fails to comply with the provisions of Section 81 . The Court observed that "substantial compliance" cannot be a shield when the statute explicitly prescribes a consequence of dismissal for procedural lapses.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the gravity of election litigation. Notable extracts include:

• "The objective of laying down a consequence of a dismissal of the Election Petition at the threshold under Section 86 (1) is for mandatory and strict compliance of the Section 81 or 82 or 117."
• "The attestation of the affidavit by the prescribed authority, therefore, is an integral part of the election petition. The question, therefore, is: Whether copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent without the attestation portion contained in it (though contained in the original affidavit) can be considered to be a 'true copy?'"
• "This Court is not able to accept the submission made on behalf of the opposite party regarding substantial compliance and suffering of prejudice inasmuch as, such requirement under the statute is mandatory in nature."

Final Verdict: The Impact of Procedural Rigour

Finding that the petitioner had failed to ensure that every page was properly attested as a "true copy," and noting the absence of proper notarization in the provided documents, the court allowed the application.

The dismissal serves as a stern reminder to legal practitioners that election petitions are special processes governed by strict statutory timelines and procedural duties. By prioritizing the mandatory requirements of the Representation of the People Act, the Court has affirmed that the integrity of an election result cannot be challenged through defective paperwork, thereby insulating elected officials from superficial or improperly filed litigation.