This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that non-compliance with the affidavit requirement under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not automatically fatal. Following the precedent in G.M. Siddeshwar, the Supreme Court held that ‘substantial compliance’ with Form 25 suffices, and defects are generally curable. The matter was remanded to the High Court to determine if the affidavit in question substantially complied with the statutory requirements and whether the defects could be rectified.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from the General Elections to the Odisha Legislative Assembly for the 07-Jharsuguda Constituency, held in 2024. The appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy, was declared the elected candidate, winning by a margin of 1,333 votes. The respondent, Dipali Das, who secured the second-highest number of votes, filed an election petition before the Orissa High Court seeking to declare the appellant’s election void. She alleged two primary grounds: firstly, that the appellant had committed corrupt practices by failing to make complete disclosures of his assets, liabilities, and criminal antecedents, and by not publishing these details as required. Secondly, she claimed there were discrepancies in the Control Unit Identification Numbers of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), which allegedly rendered 6,313 votes void—a number exceeding the victory margin. The appellant challenged the maintainability of the election petition, arguing it suffered from fatal defects, including the non-filing of a proper affidavit in the prescribed Form 25 to support the allegations of corrupt practices, as mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s application for rejection of the petition, granting the respondent time to cure the defects. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case commenced with the filing of an election petition by the respondent, Dipali Das, before the Orissa High Court, challenging the election of the appellant, Tankadhar Tripathy. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the rejection of the petition on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, notably the defective affidavit under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court, vide its order dated March 21, 2025, dismissed the appellant’s application. It held that the affidavit filed substantially complied with the law and granted the respondent three weeks to cure the defects. This impugned order of the High Court was then challenged before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition, which was granted, leading to the instant civil appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh determination on the specific issues concerning the affidavit’s defects and their curability.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in Telangana Job Case :Legitimate Expectation vs. Employer’s Right
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the law on the requirement of a Form 25 affidavit under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is well-settled, moving away from the strict view in Ravinder Singh to the more liberal principle of ‘substantial compliance’ established in G.M. Siddeshwar. The Court noted that while a defective affidavit does not automatically render an election petition non-maintainable, the High Court must ascertain if the affidavit substantially complies with the prescribed form. It found the Impugned Order deficient as it failed to specify the nature of the defects, the extent of compliance with High Court rules, and a factual analysis of whether ‘substantial compliance’ was achieved. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter for the High Court to determine these specific issues as preliminary questions.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the High Court for a fresh determination. The final judgement directed the High Court to specifically identify and analyse the defects in the Form 25 affidavit and decide, as preliminary issues, whether they constituted a lack of substantial compliance and if they were curable, including the question of filing a corrected affidavit beyond the limitation period. The Court also directed the High Court to strike out the pleadings mutually agreed upon by the parties. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case itself but instructed the High Court to re-examine the procedural defects before potentially proceeding to a trial on the substantive allegations.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tankadhar Tripathy vs. Dipali Das Citation: (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12491 / 2025) Date of Judgement: August 22, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Download The Judgement Here