Tankadhar Tripathy vs Dipali Das

2025 INSC 1017 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. _________ / 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12491 / 2025)

Tankadhar Tripathy Appellant(s)

versus

Dipali Das Respondent(s)

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal revolves around certain procedural and technical

requisites, generally ancillary to the filing of election petitions, which are

mandated in Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

(RP Act). In particular, this matter pertains to the degree of ‘substantial

compliance’ with the prescribed Form 25 affidavit, as encapsulated in

the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act read with Rule 94-A of the

Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.

A. FACTS

3. Before we foray into analysing the legal aspects involved in dissecting the Signature Not Verified Appellant’s claim, it is incumbent upon us to briefly chronicle the factual Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.08.22

background giving rise to the instant appeal.

12:23:03 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 15

4. The Governor of the State of Odisha issued a notification on 26.04.2024

to hold General Elections to constitute a new State Assembly. The

election schedule was released, and both the Appellant and the

Respondent filed their nominations from the 07-Jharsuguda Assembly

Constituency. The polling took place on 20.05.2024, followed by the

counting on 04.06.2024. The Appellant was eventually declared elected

as the returned candidate by a margin of 1,333 votes.

5. The Respondent, having gotten the second highest votes, filed ELPET No.

7 of 2024 (Election Petition) before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

(High Court), seeking the Appellant’s election to be declared void and set

aside. The Respondent in her Election Petition urged two distinct

grounds of challenge: (i) that the Appellant failed to make a complete and

truthful disclosure of his assets, liabilities, and criminal antecedents,

and further omitted to publish particulars of such criminal antecedents

in a newspaper having wide circulation, thereby indulging in ‘corrupt

practices’ as defined in Section 123 of the RP Act; and (ii) that there

existed discrepancies in the Control Unit Identification Numbers of the

Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which allegedly rendered 6,313

votes as void. It was thus contended that, since the number of such votes

far exceeded the margin of victory, the result of the election stood

materially affected.

6. The Appellant, in turn, objected to the maintainability of the Election

Petition on the sheet anchor of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying for its rejection at the very threshold.

Page 2 of 15 Pursuantly, the Appellant urged the following grounds: (i) non-joinder of

necessary parties, including a third candidate who had contested the

election; (ii) Vague, evasive, and vexatious averments in the Election

Petition; and (iii) non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of

filing the affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed in the proviso to Section

83(1)(c) of the RP Act. The Appellant urged that these defects were fatal

to the maintainability of the Election Petition. In the alternative, the

Appellant sought an order under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, to strike

out the portions of the pleadings mainly pertaining to the allegations of

‘corrupt practices’ contained in the Election Petition.

7. Upon consideration of the competing claims, the High Court, vide its

order dated 21.03.2025 (Impugned Order), dismissed the Appellant’s

application(s) and granted the Respondent three weeks’ time to file an

affidavit in the prescribed Form 25. The High Court opined that: (i) it was

not mandatory to file a separate or second affidavit, specifically in

relation to the allegations of ‘corrupt practices,’ along with the Election

Petition; (ii) the solitary affidavit filed and verified, substantially fulfilled

the requirement contemplated under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the

RP Act, and therefore the Election Petition could not be rejected solely on

this ground; (iii) in any event, any deficiency in the Form 25 affidavit

could be cured by affording the Election Petitioner an opportunity to file

a separate affidavit; and (iv) the Election Petition disclosed specific

allegations containing material facts accompanied by the requisite

Page 3 of 15 particulars. In view thereof, the High Court concluded that the matter

raised triable issues and did not merit rejection at the outset.

8. Aggrieved, the Appellant has approached this Court.

B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

9. Mr. Maninder Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Appellant, while assailing the decision of the High Court, advanced the

following submissions:

a. The allegations set out in the Election Petition were vague,

unnecessary, frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious. The petition

disclosed no cause of action for its maintainability under any of the

grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the RP Act, inasmuch as the

Respondent failed to furnish particulars of the polling agents in

respect of the 43 polling stations where the alleged discrepancies

are claimed to have occurred. Furthermore, the precise nature of

such discrepancies was not specified, whether concerning the

entries made, the counting of votes, or omissions in completing

Form 17C, etc. Additionally, no documents were annexed to

substantiate the allegations so made. These deficiencies,

cumulatively, constituted substantial non-compliance with Section

83 of the RP Act and, therefore, warranted rejection of the Election

Petition at the first instance.

b. The allegations regarding corrupt practices—specifically, the alleged

failure of the Appellant to disclose all his criminal antecedents

Page 4 of 15 together with his assets and liabilities—were wholly devoid of the

necessary particulars, such as the date of the alleged offence, the

persons involved, and the source of information. The mere pleading

of material facts, without the accompanying particulars, rendered

the Election Petition liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of

the CPC, read with Section 86 of the RP Act.

c. In the alternative, such incomplete and vague pleadings ought to

have been struck out under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC. In any

event, the Appellant asserted that he had no knowledge of the said

criminal cases at the time of filing his nomination papers, and that

the details furnished in Form 26 were in accordance with the letter

dated 15.04.2024 issued by the Superintendent of Police. Hence,

there was no wilful suppression of information regarding his

criminal antecedents.

d. The Respondent did not raise any objection before the Returning

Officer with respect to the alleged non-disclosure of the Appellant’s

criminal antecedents or his assets and liabilities at the stage when

the nomination papers were filed and scrutinised. Consequently, the

Respondent was precluded from raising such allegations at a

belated stage as a means to assail and overturn the result of a fair

and transparent election.

e. Each page of the Election Petition was not signed and verified by the

Oath Commissioner and the Respondent, as required under Section

Page 5 of 15 83(1)(c) of the RP Act read with Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC. This

defect was detrimental to the case and, consequently, the Election

Petition ought to have been rejected in limine.

f. Finally, the Election Petition was not accompanied by a separate

affidavit in Form 25, as mandated by the proviso to Section 83(1)(c)

of the RP Act. The filing of such an affidavit was mandatory when

allegations of corrupt practices were made out, and the omission to

do so warranted dismissal of the petition at the very threshold.

10. Per contra, Dr. Abhishekh Manu Singhvi and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal,

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, put forth

the following submissions:

a. As per Section 86 of the RP Act, an Election Petition could be

dismissed only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82, or 171 of

the RP Act. Permitting the dismissal of an Election Petition for non-

compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act, a section not enumerated

in Section 86, would be against the statutory mandate and

legislative intent behind the RP Act.

b. The Election Petition contained specific allegations, duly

accompanied by the necessary particulars, in relation to the alleged

corrupt practices as well as the discrepancies in the EVMs. In

support thereof, the Respondent furnished details including the

case numbers, the names of the concerned police stations,

particulars of the First Information Reports, and a comparative table

Page 6 of 15 indicating the votes recorded vis-à-vis the votes counted. It was

urged that the pleadings in the Election Petition provided the

Appellant with adequate particulars of the allegations to enable the

preparation of his defence, and that, having regard to the nature of

such allegations, their veracity could be determined only in the

course of trial.

c. A list of documents intended to substantiate the material facts was

duly disclosed by the Respondent after the ‘prayer clause’ and before

the ‘verification’ commenced. In terms of Chapter XXXIII, Rule 10 of

the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948 (High Court Rules), the

Respondent was under no obligation to file such documents as

annexures at the time of presenting the Election Petition. The

production of the same was required only upon a date being fixed

for that purpose by the concerned Learned Judge.

d. Finally, any defect in the verification of the Election Petition or in

the format of the affidavit filed in Form 25 would not, in itself, be

fatal to the proceedings. Such defects, if any, are, as repeatedly held

by this Court, curable in nature, and the High Court followed the

proper course by affording the Election Petitioner an opportunity to

rectify the same.

11. It is relevant to note at this juncture that when this appeal first came up

for hearing before this Court on 13.05.2025, we suggested to the parties

to put up their respective proposals regarding the deletion of certain

Page 7 of 15 parts of the pleadings so as to streamline and trim the issues under

consideration. Pursuant to such suggestion, both sides submitted their

respective proposals to this Court. On consideration of these proposals,

we find that the parties are ad idem atleast on the issue of deletion of

their respective pleadings so far as the same pertain to a third candidate.

C. ISSUES

12. In view of this, the only issue that survives for consideration is as follows:

(i) Whether non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the

RP Act is a fatal defect, rendering the Election Petition non-

maintainable at the threshold?

D. ANALYSIS

13. In furtherance of his claim, the Appellant urged that the affidavit

accompanying the Election Petition in support of the allegations of

‘corrupt practices’ was defective as it was not filed in the prescribed

format of Form 25. The Appellant also claimed that such a defect was

detrimental to the maintainability of the Election Petition and thus, it

ought to have been rejected at the very threshold. Reliance was placed,

in this regard, upon the decision of this Court in Ravinder Singh v.

Janmeja Singh and Others,1 where, in paragraph 11, it was observed

that Section 83 of the RP Act was mandatory in nature, and that an

Election Petition containing allegations of corrupt practices must, in law,

be accompanied by an affidavit to that effect in the prescribed form. It

1 (2000) 8 SCC 191.

Page 8 of 15 was further held that the absence of a proper affidavit, filed in support

of such allegations, constituted a fatal defect warranting immediate

dismissal of the election petition.

14. To the contrary, the Respondent submitted that no such separate

affidavit was required to accompany an Election Petition alleging the

conduct of ‘corrupt practices.’ The Respondent, in fact, went so far as to

claim that even the complete absence of an affidavit in Form 25 was

curable and the concerned court should always grant time to the Election

Petitioner to rectify such defects before proceeding to trial.

15. After the decision in Ravinder Singh (supra), the question concerning

non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act and its

effect on the maintainability of an election petition was reconsidered by

a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in G. M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna

Kumar.2 In that case, this Court held that while non-compliance with

the provisions of Section 83 of the RP Act was curable, there must

nonetheless be ‘substantial compliance’ therewith.

16. It was clarified that in cases of total and complete non-compliance with

Section 83, the pleading could not be regarded as an Election Petition

and was liable to be rejected at the outset. Proceeding on this premise,

the Court further held that although a defective affidavit may not, by

itself, render an Election Petition non-maintainable, the High Court must

ensure that the defect was cured prior to the commencement of trial so

2 (2013) 4 SCC 776.

Page 9 of 15 as to enable the returned candidate to effectively meet the allegations

and not be taken by surprise at that stage. This decision thus reflects a

more liberal approach towards the substance of a Form 25 affidavit, as

contrasted with the stricter view adopted in Ravinder Singh (supra).

17. This ‘evolved’ view of the law has since been relied upon and followed by

this Court in more recent judgements, such as A. Manju v. Prajwal

Revanna3 and Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh.4 In

these decisions, this Court has further underscored that the requirement

of filing an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act is

not of a mandatory character, and that ‘substantial compliance’

therewith would suffice. Indeed, where an affidavit is already on record,

albeit not in the prescribed Form 25, the proper course would be to afford

the Election Petitioner an opportunity to file a corrected affidavit in

conformity with the prescribed form.

18. In our considered view, the question of law on this aspect is extremely

well-settled in the above-cited cases, and thus the issue raised is no

longer res integra. However, one question that still requires

consideration, in terms of G. M. Siddeshwar (supra), is: whether the

defects in a Form 25 affidavit filed alongside the Election Petition are

required to be cured by way of a fresh affidavit within the stipulated

period of limitation or whether it can be filed at any point during the

proceedings, even after such period has expired?

3 (2022) 3 SCC 269.

4 (2023) 17 SCC 500.

Page 10 of 15

19. In this respect, the first port of call ought to be the ‘Rules to Regulate

Proceedings under Section 80-A of the Representation of the People Act,

1951 (Act 43 of 1951),’ which are contained in Chapter XXXIII of the High

Court Rules. Rules 7 and 21 of this Chapter prescribe the process of

scrutiny of an Election Petition and the procedure to be followed while

conducting the proceedings. Rules 7 and 21 read as follows:

“7. Every election petition shall, on presentation, be examined by the Stamp Reporter, who shall certify thereon whether the petition is in conformity with the requirements of law and the rules applicable to the same and the petition with the defects or omissions if any, as reported by the Stamp Reporter, shall be referred to the Judge who has been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of the Election Petition for orders under section 86 of the Act.

21. Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, so far as may be applicable, will apply to the proceedings arising under the Act. The rules regarding applications and affidavits in Chapter VI Part II of the Orissa High Court Rules Vol. I shall apply mutatis mutandis to the applications under this Chapter.” [Emphasis supplied]

20. It becomes clear from a perusal of these Rules that at the stage of

presenting an Election Petition, it must be examined by the prescribed

officer of the High Court, alongwith its accompanying documents, so as

to ensure that the same conforms with the requirements of law and the

applicable rules. During this process, if it is found that the Election

Petition or its accompanying documents suffer from any defects or

omissions, the same shall be placed before the learned Judge-cum-

Election Tribunal. The judicial proceedings thereafter shall be conducted

Page 11 of 15 in accordance with the rules and procedures described in Rule 21 above.

Such procedure also contemplates compliance with the contents and

format of an affidavit elaborately described in Chapter VI of the High

Court Rules.

21. In the instant case, the Impugned Order does not clarify whether the

above-stated process of scrutiny was duly followed by the prescribed

officer at the time of presentation of the Election Petition. Further, there

is no reference to whether any defects were noticed at the time of

admission. In the same vein, it is also indiscernible from the Impugned

Order whether the Learned Judge, to whom the Election Petition was

assigned, granted any time to the Election Petitioner to cure such defects

at the first instance. Instead, the Impugned Order, which emanated from

an adjudication at the Order VII Rule 11 stage, simply granted the

Respondent an opportunity to “cure defects” and further provided a

period of three weeks to do so. The Impugned Order thus neither sheds

any light on the nature of the defects so recognized, nor clarifies whether

the opportunity to rectify such defects was accorded before or after the

expiry of the period of limitation.

22. Alongside this, it is pertinent to note that the law evolved in the recent

decisions of this Court, as cited in paragraphs 15 to 17 above, places an

obligation on the Election Petitioner to file an affidavit which amounts to

‘substantial compliance’ with the prescribed format. Whether an affidavit

appended with an Election Petition has ‘substantially complied’ with or

‘omitted’ to do so is essentially a question of fact to be determined by

Page 12 of 15 juxtaposing the allegations of ‘corrupt practices’ averred in the Election

Petition vis-à-vis the contents of the supporting affidavit. Substantial

compliance in ordinary terms means, almost, actual compliance with the

essence of the enactment, or perhaps, in simpler terms, to do all that is

reasonably expected, which satisfies the substance of the Statute. It,

however, cannot be inferred to mean mere lip service to the requirements

of the law. That being so, although the High Court has concluded that

the affidavit ‘substantially complied’ with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c),

it has not detailed the examination conducted in order to reach such a

conclusion. As a result, the necessary facts-based analysis appears to

have escaped attention.

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 High Court has

correctly identified some grounds, other than ‘corrupt practices,’ on

which the Election Petition deserves further consideration on merits.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

24. In light of the above discussion, the matter stands remitted to the High

Court with the following directions and conclusions:

Page 13 of 15

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.

Page 14 of 15

25. The instant appeal stands disposed of in these terms.

26. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are also to be disposed

of in the above terms.

...................…….........J. (SURYA KANT)

...................…….........J. (JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 22, 2025

Page 15 of 15