The Supreme Court today (August 24) restored an election petition filed by advocate and Indian National Congress member Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party's Kripanath Mallah, who won the Lok Sabha elections from the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in Assam during the 2024 General Elections.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed the civil appeal, which has been preferred under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the Gauhati High Court's judgment dated April 4, 2025, which rejected the election petition at the threshold.

By the said judgment, the High Court had dismissed the election petition filed by Choudhary challenging the election of Kripanath, alleging corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the RP Act. However, the returned candidate filed an application under Section 86, read with Sections 81 and 83 of the RoP Act, and Section 151 CPC, seeking the outright dismissal of the election petition at the threshold, without going into a full trial.

It was argued that the election petition didn't indicate any notarization, the Form 25 affidavit alleging corrupt practice was not properly attested, and some pages were missing. While the High Court rejected the issue regarding missing pages, it dismissed the election petition on improper attestation in Form 25.

Choudhury had contested the 2024 parliamentary election from the Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency. As recorded in the appeal papers, the appellant had secured 5,26,733 votes, while the returned candidate had secured 5,45,093 votes, the difference being 18,360 votes.

On the issue of attestation, the Court held that the expressions 'attested to be true copy' and 'certified to be true copy' convey the same meaning and therefore, there has been compliance with Section 81(3).

As to the affidavit lacking notary attestation details on the Form-25, the Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar, and held that a defect concerning the Form 25 doesn't necessary leads to peremptory dismissal of the election petition.

It held that the original Form-25 in the present case was affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits and requested the High Court to verify if due attestation of the affirmation on oath is available, and proceed with the matter on merits. If the said is not available, it shouldn't permit the allegation of corrupt practices to be urged and proceed on any other grounds.

Justice Chandran pronounced the judgment as: "We, hence, find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court and reverse the same. We restore the Election Petition to the files of the High Court for consideration as required herein above."

Headnote

Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 81(3), 83(1)(c) proviso, and 86 — Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, Rule 94A & Form-25 — Election Petition — Attestation of Copies — Defect in Form-25 Affidavit Copy supplied to Returned Candidate — Dismissal in Limine — Maintainability - Attestation under Section 81(3) - Section 81(3) requires every copy of the election petition to be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy - No particular form of attestation is prescribed; what is required is that the election petitioner signs at the foot of each page, taking responsibility that the copy served is a true copy - The use of different rubber stamps—such as 'attested to be true copy' on some pages and 'certified to be true copy' on others—conveys the same meaning and does not invalidate the election petition. [Paras 20-24]

Absence of Notarization/Attestation Endorsement in Form-25 Copy Supplied to Respondent - The absence of the endorsement of attestation/notarization on the copy of the Form-25 affidavit served on the returned candidate is not fatal to the maintainability of the election petition under Section 81(3) read with Section 86 - The word 'copy' under Section 81(3) does not mean an absolutely exact replica, but one so true that nobody can misunderstand it - The test is whether the variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person - Where the original affidavit filed before the Court has been duly affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits/Notary, the omission of such endorsement in the copy served does not mislead the returned candidate - It merely calls for verification by the High Court from the original record. [Paras 21–25]

Scope of Section 86 vs Section 83 - Section 86 mandates peremptory dismissal of an election petition only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82, or 117 - A defect relating to the affidavit of corrupt practices under the proviso to Section 83(1) does not attract summary dismissal under Section 86 - Even if Form-25 read with Rule 94A is found to be defective upon verification of the original record, it only warrants striking off the allegations of corrupt practices; the High Court must proceed to try and decide any other independent grounds on merits. [Relied on Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 129; F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375; Paras 21 – 26]

Case Details:  HAFIZ RASHID AHMED CHOUDHURY v KRIPANATH MALLAH AND ORS.|C.A. No. 7474/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 857

Appearances:  Mr. Harin Pravinkant Raval, learned Senior Advocate, appeared for the Appellant, assisted by Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record, alongwith Ms. Urmi H Raval, Adv Mr. Siddharth H Raval Adv Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv, And Qazi Mohammad Farhan

Click Here To Read Judgment