Holding

A copy of the election petition that omits the notarized verification of the supporting affidavit is not a "true copy" under Section 81(3), making the election petition non‑maintainable and subject to dismissal.

Summary

Dr. SMT. Shipra filed an election petition challenging the election of S.L. Khotwal on grounds of corrupt practices. The petition and its supporting affidavit were served on the returned candidate, but the copy of the affidavit omitted the notarized verification required by Form 25 under Rule 94‑A of the Conduct of Elections Rules. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that, because the copy was not a "true and correct copy" as mandated by Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petition was not maintainable. The Supreme Court held that verification by a Notary or other prescribed authority is a vital component of the affidavit; its omission makes the copy not a true copy, rendering the election petition non‑maintainable and liable to dismissal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The copy of the election petition and accompanying affidavit, lacking notarized verification, can be considered a "true and correct copy" under Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the omission of the notarized attestation constitutes a fatal defect that warrants dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Verification provisions (general)
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961s. Form 25, s. Rule 94-A
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 81, s. 83(1)(c), s. 86

Subjects

election petitiontrue copynotary verificationcorrupt practicesRepresentation of the People ActSection 81Section 83Section 86Conduct of Elections RulesForm 25preliminary objectiondismissal

Judgment

DR. SMT. SHIPRA A
v.
SHANTI LAL KHOTWAL

APRIL 3, 1996

!K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Election Law :

Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 83( 1)(c) & proviso, C
81 and 86.

Election petition-Tme copy-Fumishing of-To retwned candidate-
C01i11pt practice-Copy of election petition supplied to retwned candidate
together with affidavit not containing ve1ification by Notwy--Copy of election
petitio11 alleging co1111pt practice required to be accompanied by affidavit D
along with Fmm 25 prescribed under R. 94-A of Co11duct of Elections Rules
r/w proviso to S.83( I) of R.P. Act to be "swam before a Magfrtrate of the first
class or a Notwy or a Commissioner of Oaths''-Held : Requireme11t ma11-
di:Jt01y and is an integral palt of election petition-In case of non-complia11ce,
copy of petition cannot be treated as "tme copy" under S. 81 (3 )--Such E
omission is a vital act and would mislead the retwned candidate-Therefore,
filing the miginal affidavit duly ve1ified, with the election petition would not
rnre the defect of no11-supply of such affidavit to the retuined candidate on
ground of substantial compliance-Lapse on pwt of Regist1y of High Cowt
to point out defect-Does not bar retwned candidate to raise preliminwy
objection regardi11g maintainability of election petition 011 gro1111d of no11-com- F
pliance of mandat01y req11ireme11t-lf cowt upholds pre/iminwy objection,
election petition would result in dismissal at the ti!l"eslwl~Where election
petition raises other independent issues apalt from comtpt practice, only those
pwts of the petition which cu11tai11 allegations of conupt practice alone require
to be st111ck off and other issues lo be t1ied and decided 011 111e1its-Co11duct G
of Elections Rules, 1961, R.94-A.

Words a11d Phrases : "Tme copy''-Meaning oj:

The appellant challenged the respondent's election to the State
Assembly on the ground that the respondent had committed corrupt H
1175
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS j1996J 3 S.C.R.

A practices. After sen ice of the notice, the respondent raised preliminary
1

objections contending that copy of the notice togt'ther with tlu: atlidavit in
support of the election petition served on hin1, did not contain the veritica~
tion by the Notary; hence the election petition \Vas not n1aintainable in
accordance with Section 83(1) (c) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951. The objections found favour with the High Court, which accordingly
B
dismissed the election petition.

The question before this Court was : Whether the copy of the election
petition accompanied by supporting affidavit served on the respective
respondents along with Form 25 prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Con-
C duct of Election Rules, 1961 without attestation part duly verified by the
District Magistrate/Notary/Oath Commissioner can be said to be "true and
correct copy" of the election petition as envisaged in Section 81 (3) of the
Act?

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
D
(Per Ramaswamy, J) :

HELD: 1.1. Since the corrupt practices are required to be proved to
the hilt, the element of vagueness would immediately vitiate the election
E petition. A true copy supplied with mistakes of vital and serious nature
would, therefore, entail dismissal of the election petition. Each case has to
be considered on its own facts and circumstances. No general principal of
universal applicatio':' could possibly be laid. (1184-E)

1.2. A true copy is a transcript identical to or substitute to the
F original but not ahsolutel)' t'Xact copy. But nobody can by any possibility,
1nisunderstand it to be not a true copy. The test is whether any variation
from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person. When· a
petitioner is enjoined to file an election petition accompanied by an af-
fidavit duly sworn by the applicant duly verifying diverse allegations of
G corrupt practices imputed to the returned candidate and attested by the
prescribed authority it would be obvious that the statute intended that it
• shall be performed in the san1e manner as prescribed in Form 25 read with
Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. [1183-B-D)

Sarkar on Evidence (14th Edn. 1993), p.2183; Black's Law Dictionmy
H (6th Edn.); Webster's Comprehensive Dictionmy (International Edn.) and
...
.•
DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL . · .. 1177

Stroud's Judicial Dictionwy (5th Edn.) (Vol. 5), referred to. A
2.1. Verification by a Notary or any other prescribed authority is a
vital act which assures that the election petitioner had allirmed before the
notary etc. that the statement containing imputation of corrupt practices
was duly and solemnly verified to be correct statement to the best of his
knowledge or information as specified in the election petition and the B
allidavit filed in support thereof that reinforces the assertions .. Thus
allirmation before the prescribed authority in the atlidavit and the supply
of its true copy should also contain such affirmation so that the returned
candidate would not be misled in his understanding that imputation of
corrupt practices was solemnly affirmed or duly verified before the C
prescribed authority; the object appears to be that the returned candidate
is not misled that it was not duly verified. The concept of substantial
compliance of filing the original with the election petition and the omission
thereof in the copy supplied to the returned candidate as true copy cannot
be said to be a curable irregularity. (185-E-G]
D
2.2. Allegations of corrupt practices are very serious imputations
which, if proved, would entail civil consequences of declaring that he
became disqualified for election to a maximum period of six years under
Section SA of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, apart from
conviction under Section 136(2) of the Act. Therefore, compliance of the E
statutory requirement is an integral part of the election petition and true
copy supplied to the returned candidate should as a sine qua 11011 contain
the due verification and attestation by the prescribed authority and cer-
tified to be true copy by the election petitioner in his/her own signature~
The concept of substantial compliance cannot be extmded to overlook
serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a true copy so that F
the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot be said to be a true
copy. [1185-H, 1186-A-B; 1185-D]

P111ushott(Jm v. Ret111ning Office1; AIR (1992) Born. 227, approved.

Mithileslz Kumar Pande v. Baidyanath Yadav, [1984] 2 SCR 278, relied G
on.

Manohar Joshi v. Nitim Bhaurao Patil, [1996) 1 SCC 169; Subhash
Desai v. Sharad J. Rao, [1994] Supp. 2 SCC 446; Ch. Subbarao v. Member,
Election T!ibunal, Hyderabad, [1964] 6 SCC 213; Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A B1ijlal Nandlal Bivani, (1955] 2 SCR 428; Mwwka Radhey Shyam Ram
Kumar v. Roop Singh Ratlwre, [1964] 3 S~R 579 and Sahodrabai Rai v.
Ram Singh Aharww; [1968] 3 SCR 13, held foapplicable.

3.1. It is true that the defects could be rectified on being pointed out
by the Registry of the High Court. As per Rules 8 and 9 of the High Court
B Rules, the Registrar is enjoined to point out th_e defects IJut the same was
not done in the present case. [1184-F]

3.2. The contention that the election petition cannot be dismissed
under Section 86 of the Act at the threshold on account of the omission on
C the part of the Registry of the High Court to point out the same as per its
procedure; cannot be countenanced. Lapse on the part of the Registry is
not an insurance to deny tu the returned candidate the plea that the
attestation of the affidavit and its certification to be a true copy is an
integral part of the pleadings in the election petition. Sections 81, 83(1) (c)
D and 86 of the Act read with Rule 94-A of the Rules and Form 25 are tu be
read conjointly as an integral scheme. When so read, if the Court finds on
an objection, being raised by the returned candidate, as to the main-
tainability of the election petition, the Court is required to go into the
question and decide the preliminary objection. In case the Court does not
E uphold the same, the need to conduct trial would arise. If the Court
upholds the preliminary objection, the election petition would result in
dismissal at the threshold, as the Court is left with no option except to
dismiss the same. [1186-C-E]

3.3. It is well settled that only those parts of the petition which
F contain allegations of corrupt practices and which are not pleaded in
conformity with Form 25 read with Rule 94-A and Section 83(1), alone are
required to be struck off and other independent issues are required to be
tried and decided on merits. In this case, though validity of the rejection
of the appellant's nomination was c.1uestioned by the appellant in the High
G Court it was not seriously canvassed and the main thrust of the argument
in the High Court was on corrupt practices and curability of the defect
which did not find favour with the High Court. In view of the above finding,
the question of barring the appellant to contest elections on the ground of
improper rejection or nomination, does not arise for serious considera-
H lion. The entire election petition rested only on imputation of corrupt
DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.I.,. KHOIWAL 1179

practices. Consequently, when the election petition was held not main· A
tainable due to the material defect in the true copy of the atlidavit, which
is an integral part of the election petition, dismissal of the election petition
cannot be faulted. [1186-G-H; 1187-A-B]

· Per Bharucha, J. (concurring) :
B
1. The "true copy" of the election petition furnished by the appellant
(election petitioner) to the respondent (the successful candidate) did not
show that the appellant's atlidavit supporting his allegations \if corrupt
practice had been dnly sworn or atlirmed. Where corrupt practice is
alleged, the election petititioner must support the allegation by making an C
affidavit in the format prescribed. An atlidavit must be sworn or affirmed
in the manner rec1uired by law, or it is not an atlidavit. The document
purporting to be a true copy of the election petition furnished by the
appellant to the respondent gave the impression that the appellant's
affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt practice had not been sworn D
or atlirmed and was, therefore, no atlidavit at all; it misled in a material
particular and its supply was, as the High Court held, fatal to the election
petition. [1187-E-G]

(Per Paripoornan, J. concurring)
E
1. The allidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83(1) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 also forms part of the election
petition. The election petition is in truth and reality one document, con-
sisting of two parts - one being the election petition proper and the other
being the atlidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83~1) of the Act. F
So, the copy of the election petition required to be tiled under Section 81 (3)
read along with Section 83 will include a copy of the atlidavit. The absence
of the endorsement of the Notary on the copy of the affidavit accompanying
the election petition renders the copy as not conforming to Section 81(3)
lif the Act, and the election petition is liable to be dismissed for the said G
omission. [1189-H; 1190-A]

.. Pwushottam v. Retwing Office1; AIR 1992 Born. 227, approved .

F.A. Sapa v. Singora, [1991] 3 SCC 375 and M. Kama/am v. Dr. V.A.
Syed Mohammed, AIR (1978) SC 840, relied on. H
)

1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6359 of
1994 Etc.

From the .T udgment Order dated 30.8.94 of the Rajasthan High Court
in S.B. Election. P. No. 6 of 1994.

B Pallav Shishodia, Abhijat P. Medh, Ranbir Yadav, Kanhaiya
Priyadarshni Krishan Singh Chauhan and Dr. S.P. Balwadia for the appear-
ing parties.

The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
c K. RAMASWAMY, J. Since the question involved is common to all
the appeals, they are disposed of together.

The first appeal, viz., CA. No. 6359 of 1994 arises from the .iudgment
dated August 30, 1994 of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
D made in Election Petition No. 6 of 1994. The appellant's nomination from
Constituency No. 1, viz., Rajsamand, reserved for Scheduled Castes for
10th Legislative Assembly of the Rajasthan State was rejected on the
ground that appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste. The
respondent's election, after poll, was challenged by the appellant on the
E ground that the respondent had committed corrupt practices. After service
of the notice, the respondent raised preliminary objections contending,
inter alia that copy of the notice together with the affidavit in support of
the election petition, i.e., Annexures 5 and 6, served on him, did not contain
the verification by the notary; hence the election petition was not main-
tainable in accordance with Section 83(1)( c) of the Representation of the
F People Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act'). The objections found favour with
the High Court which accordingly dismissed the election petition by the
impugned order dated August 30, 1994.

Jn C.A. No. 8080 of 1994, elections to the Assembly Constituen.cy No.
152, viz., Sahada in the Rajasthan State were held on November 11, and
G respondent was declared elected on November 28, 1993. The appellant,
after he lost the election, filed Election Petition No. 4 of 1994 challenging
election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt practices alleged to
have been committed by him. Similar to the case of Mrs. Shipra, copy of
the affidavit filed in support of the election petition supplied to the
H respondent, did not contain the verification by the notary. When objection
DR. SMT. SHIPRA v. S.L. KHOIWAL [K. RAMASWAMY, J. J 1181

in that regard was raised by the respondent, the learned single Judge by A
.I judgment dated September 22, 1994 dismissed the election petition.

In C.A. No. 6635 of 1995, elections were held to the Assembly
Constituency No. 160, viz., Raipur in Pali District for lOth Legislative
Assembly of the Rajasthan State. The appellant had contested the elections
against the respondent who was declared elected on November 28, 1993. B
The appellant, after he lost the election, filed Election Petition No. 9 of
1994 challenging the election of the respondent on the ground of corrupt
practice imputed to have been committed by the respondent. Similar to
earlier appeals, the copy of the affidavit supplied along with the election
petition to the respondent admittedly did not contain verification by the C
notary. When objection in that regard was raised by the respondent, the
learned single Judge by impugned _judgment dated May 26, 1995 upheld
the objection and dismissed the election petition.

In Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1993, the respondent was declared elected D
to the Lok Sabha from the Parliamentary Constituency of Mandsaur in
Madhya Pradesh. The appellant, an elector, filed Election Petition No. 9
of 1991 challenging the election of the respondent imputing corrupt prac-
tices to have been committed by him. The copy of the affidavit supplied to
the respondent did not contain the verification by the notary or oath
commissioner. When preliminary ob.iection was raised by the respondent, E
the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the
same and dismissed the election petition.

Thus in all the appeals, the only question that arises for consideration
is : whether the copy of the election petition accompanied by supporting F
affidavit served on the respective respondents along with Form 25
prescribed under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (for
short, the 'Rules') without attestation part duly verified by the District
Magistrate/Notary/Oath Commissioner ca~ be said to be "true and correct
copy" of the election petition as envisaged in Section 81(3) of the Act? An
election petition calling any election in question, presented under Section G
81(1) of the Act, shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
•·
which the petitioner relies, set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice
alleged therein, including "as full a statement as possible" of the names of
the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date
and place of the commission of each such practice; and the election H
\

1182 SUPREME COURT REP ORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A petitioner shall sign the petition and verify in the manner laid down in the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the verification of the pleadings. Sub-sec-
tion (3) of Section 81 envisages that "IE]very election petition shall be
..
accon1panied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents men-
tioned in the election petition and every such copy shall be attested by the
11 11
petitioner under his own signature to be true copy of the petition •

B Indisputably, requisite number of copies of the election petition accom-
panied by the summons were attested by the appellant under her own
signature to be true copy. The copy supplied to the respondent admittedly
did not bear the attestation part. Rule 94-A of the Rule provides that the
affidavit containing allegations of corrupt practices shall be in the
c prescribed form, viz., Form 25 which enjoins accompaniment of solemn
affidavit to be duly sworn by the election petitioner duly verifying correct-
ness of alleged corrupt practice mentioned in various paragraphs of the
election petition and attestation by District Magistrate/Notary/Oath Com-
missioner. The copy supplied to the respondent admittedly did not contain
D such a verification by the Notary who had attested the original affidavit
filed along with election petition certifying it to be a true copy.

The question, arises as to the meaning of the expression tttrue copy!!.
In "Sarkar on Evidence" (14th Edition - 1993) it is stated at page 2183
under "Appendix A" that "[A]n affidavit is a statement in writing on oath
E or affirmation before a person having authority to administer an oath or
affirmation. The affidavit should be in statutory Form 25 prescribed under
Rule 94-A. It should be supplied alongwith the election petition which
contains allegations of corrupt practices as grounds for assailing the validity
of the election of a returned candidate. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th
F Edition) "copy" is defined at page 336 to mean "[AJ transcript, double
imitation, or reproduction of an original writing, painting, instrument, or
the like. Under best evidence rule, a copy may not be introduced until
original is accounted for". At page 1508, the word "true" has been defined
as 11 [C}onformable to faCt; correct; exact; actual; genuine; honest. In one
sense, th~t only is "true" copy which is conformable to the actual state of
G things. The expression "true copy" is defined to mean : [A] true copy does
not mean an absolutely exact copy but means that the copy shall be so true
that anybody can understand it" In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary
(International Edition) "true copy" is defined as "[A]n exact, verbatim
transcript of any document, report, etc.; especially, one certified as correct
H by a qualified authority". In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary [5th Edition] [Vol.
\

DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL[K. RAMASWAMY,.T.J 1183

5) "true copy" is defined at page 2694 thus : "A 'true copy' does not mean A
an absolutely exact copy; but it means that the copy shall be so true that
nobody can by any possibility misunderstand it... The test whether the copy
is a "true" one is whether any variation from the original is calculated to
mislead an ordinary person".

It would thus be clear that a true copy is a transcript identical to or B
substitute to the original but not absolutely exact copy. But nobody can by
any possibility, misunderstand it to be not a true copy. It is seen that the
test, as stated earlier, is whether by any variation from the original is
calculated to mislead an ordinary person. When a petitioner is enjoined to
file an election petition accompanied by an affidavit duly sworn by the C
applicant duly verifying diverse allegations of corrupt practices imputed to
the returned candidate and attested by the prescribed authority it would
be obvious that the statute intended that it shall be performed in the same
manner as prescribed in Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Rules. The
attestation of the affidavit by the prescribed authority, therefore, is an
integral part of the election petition. The question, therefore, is : whether D
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"?

In Mithilesh Kumar Pande v. Baidyanath Yadav & Ors., [1984) 2 SCR E
278, in a situation analogous to the present one, question had arisen :
whether the copy of an election petition, though attested by the election
petitioner under his own signature, when it contained mistakes of vital
character, could be considered to be a true copy and whether the man-
datory requirement of Section 83(3) of the Act had been complied with ?
This Court, after considering the entire case law including those cited F
across the bar by the counsel for the appellant, had held thus :

"On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the law on the subject,
the following principles are well established :

(1) that where the copy of the election petitioner served on the G
returned candidate contains only clerical or typographical mistakes
which are of no consequence, the petition cannot be dismissed
straightaway under s:86 of the Act,

(2) a true copy means a copy which is wholly and substantially the H
\

1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A same as the original and where there arc insignificant or minimal
mistakes, the court may not take notice thereof,

(3) where the copy contains important omissions or discrepancies
of a vital nature, which are likely to cause prejudice to the defence
of the returned candidate, it cannot be said that there has been a
B substantial compliance of the provisions of s.81(3) of the Act,

(4) p1i111a facie, the statute uses the word "true copy" and the
concept of substantial compliance cannot be extended too far to
include serious or vital mistakes which shed the character of a true
copy so that the copy furnished to the returned candidate cannot
c be said to be a true copy within the meaning of s.81(3) of the Act,
and

(5) as s.81(3) is meant to protect and safeguard the sacrosanct
electoral process so as not to disturb the verdict of the voters, there
D is no room for giving a liberal or broad interpretation to the
provisions of the said section. 11

Since the corrupt practices are required to be proved to the hilt, the
element of vagueness would immediately vitiate the election petition. A
true copy supplied with mistakes of vital and serious nature would, there-
E fore, entail dismissal of the election petition. Each case has to be con-
sidered on its own facts and circumstances. No general principle of
universal application could possibly be laid. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the affidavit is not an integral part of the election
petition. Substantial compliance would be sufficient. We find no force in
F the contention. True that the defects could be rectified on being pointed
out by the Registry of the High Court. As per Rules 8 and 9 of the High
Court Rules, the Registrar is enjoined to point out the defects but the same
was not done. It is contended that the respondent was in any way misled
or prejudiced. The defect was a curable one. Opportunity should have been
given to the appellant to have the defects corrected. In case the appellant
G had not carried out the correction, that part of the allegations which
mentioned in the election petition alone is required to be struck off. The
election petition cannot be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act since it
is duly presented under Section 81. It would be done only at the trial, on
proof of prejudice or the omission or prejudice caused to the respondent.
H In this case that step was not taken. In support thereof, the counsel cited
DR. SMT. SHIPRA v. S.L. KHOIWAL [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 1185

catena of derisions of this Court, viz., Manohar Joshi v. Nitim Shawm> Patil A
& Anr., (1996] 1 sec 169; Subhash Desai V. Sharad J. Rao & 01:1·., (1994]
Supp. 2 SCC 446; Ch. Subbarao v. Membe1; Election Tlibwial, Hyderabad,
[1964] 6 SCC 213; Bhikaji Keshao Joshi & Anr. v. B1ijlal Nandlal Biyani &
01:~., [1.955] 2 SCR 428 at 429; Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop
Singh Rathore & Ors., (1964] 3 SCR 579 and Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh
Aha1wa1;. (1968) 3 SCR 13. We have carefully gone through all the cited
B
decisions and given our anxious consideration to the respective conten-
tions. In none of the cases the present question had arisen. In all the cases,
thought the affidavit or the election petition contained allegations of cor-
rupt practices and true copies were served, the omissions in the copies
were not of material facts which become an integral part of the election C
petition or of the pleadings. Therefore, this Court had not insisted upon
strict standard of the scrutiny as required under Section 86.

In Pwushottam v. Retwning Officer, Amravati & Ors., AIR 1992
Bombay 227, the present question had directly arisen. In that case the copy D
contained omission of vital nature, viz., the attestation by the prescribed
authority. The High Court had held that the concept of substantial com-
pliance cannot be extended to overlook serious or vital mistakes which shed
the character of a true copy so that the copy furnished to the returned
candidate cannot be said to be a true copy. We approve of the above view.
Verification by a Notary or any other prescribed authority is a vital act E
which assures that the election petitioner had affirmed before the notary
etc. that the statement containing imputation of corrupt practices was duly
and solemnly verified to be correct statement to the best of his knowledge
or information as specified in the election petition and affidavit filed in
support thereof; that reinforces .the assertions. Thus affirmation before the F
prescribed authority in the affidavit and the supply of its try copy should
also contain such affirmation so that the returned candidate would not be
misled in his understanding that imputation of corrupt practices was
solemnly affirmed or duly verified before the prescribed authority. For that
purpose, form 25 mandates verification before the prescribed authority.
The object appears to the that the returned candidate is not misled that it G
was not duly verified. The concept of substantial compliance of filing the
original with the election petition and the omission thereof in the copy
supplied to the returned candidate as true copy cannot be said to be a
curable irregularity. Allegations of corrupt practices are very serious im-
putations which, if proved, would entail civil consequences of declaring that H
1186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A he became disqualified for election to a maximum period of six years under
Section SA, apart from conviction under Section 136(2). Therefore, com-
pliance of the statutory requirement is an integral part of the election
petition and true copy supplied to the returned candidate should as a sine
qua 11011 contain the due verification and attestation by the prescribed
authority and certified to be. true copy by the election petitioner in his/her
B own signature. The principle of substantial compliance cannot be accepted
in the fact situation.

The contention that the election petition cannot be dismissed under
Section 86 at the threshold on account of the omission on the part of the
C Registry of the High Court to point out the same as per its procedure,
cannot be countenanced. Lapse on the part of the Registry is not an
insurance to deny to the returned candidate the plea that the attestation
of the affidavit and its certification to be a true copy is an integral part of
the pleadings in the election petition. Section 81, 83(1)(c) and 86 read with
D Rule 94-A of the Rules and form 25 are to be read conjointly as an integral
scheme. When so read, if the Court finds on a objection, being raised by
the returned candidate, as to the maintainability of the election petition,
the Court is required to go into the question and decide the preliminary
objection. In case the Court does not uphold the same, the need to conduct
trial' would arise. If the Court upholds the preliminary objection, the
E election petition would result in dismissal at the threshold, as the Court is
left with no option except to dismiss the same.

It is true that in Mrs. Shipra's case i.e. C.A. No. 6359 of 1994, yet
another contention was raised by her, viz., that re.iection of her nomination
F was invalid in law. The High Court has held that even if more grounds were
raised assailing the legality of the result of the election declared and if the
mandatory requirement of Section 83(1)(c) read with Rule 94-A was not
complied with, the entire petition would have entailed dismissal. ·That view,
we are of the firm opinion, is not correct in law. It is well settled that only
G those parts of the petition which contain allegations of corrupt practices
and which are not pleaded in conformity with Form 25 read with Rule 94-A
and Section 83(1), alone are required to be struck off and other inde-
pendent issues are required to be tried and decided on merits. In this case,
though validity of the rejection of her nomination was questioned by the
appellant, it would appear that in the High Court it was not seriously
H canvassed and the main thrust of the argument in the High Court, by the
DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL [BHARUCHA, J.] 1187

counsel for the appellant, was on corrupt practices and curability of the A
defect which did not find favour with the High Court. In view of the above
finding, we are of the considered view that the question of barring the
appellant to contest elections on the ground of improper rejection or
nomination, docs not arise for serious consideration. The entire election
petition rested only on imputation of corrupt practices. Consequently when B
the election petition was held not maintainable due to the material defect
in the true copy of the affidavit which is an integral part of the election
petition, dismissal of the election petition cannot be faulted.

In other appeals, no other ground except the allegations of corrupt
practices, was pleaded. Under these circumstances, we are of the con- C
sidered view that the learned Judges have not committed any error of law
warranting our interference.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances,
without costs.
D
BHARUCHA, J. I am in respectful agreement with the judgment and
order of our learned brother, K. Ramaswamy, J. I would set out my
reasons, briefly, thus :

The question that must be posed, as indicated by this Court's pre- E
vious decisions, is : does the document purporting to be a true copy of the
election petition mislead in a material particular '? The "true copy" of the
election petition furnished by the appellant (election petitioner) to the
respondent (the successful candidate) did not show that the appellant's
affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt practice had been duly sworn
F
or affirmed. Where corrupt practice is alleged, the election petitioner must
support the allegation by making an affidavit in the format prescribed. An
affidavit must be sworn or affirmed in the manner required by law, or it is
not an affidavit. The document purporting to be a true copy of the election
petition furnished by the appellant to the respondent gave the impression
that the appellant's affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt practice G
had not been sworn or affirmed and was, therefore, no affidavit at all; it
misled in a material particular and its supply was, as the High Court held,
fatal to the election petition.

PARIPOORNAN, J. I respectfully agrne with my learned Brethren H
1188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A that the appeals should be dismissed.
The relevant facts in the appeals are stated in the judgment of my
learned Brother Ramaswamy, .I. In view of the importance of the question,
I would add the following·:

B Sections 81, 83 and 86 of the Representation of People Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), call for interpretation in this batch
of appeals. The said statutory provisions may be usefully quoted.

Section 81

c "81. Presentation of petitions. - (1) An election petition calling in
question any election may be presented on one ,ir more of the
grounds specified in sub-section ( 1) of section JOO and section 101
to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector
within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election
of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned
D
candidate at the election and the dates of their election or dif-
ferent, the later of those two dates.

,. Etplanation. - In this sub-section, 11 elector" means a person who
was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition
E relates, whether he has voted at such election or not.

(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies
thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition, and
every such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own
signature to be a true COJJY of the petition. 11
F
(emphasis supplied)

Section 83.

"83 Contents of petition. - (1) An election petition-
G
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on
which the petitioner relies;
•
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the
petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of
H the names of the parties alleged to have committed such
DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL [PARIPOORNAN,J.] 1189

corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission A
of each such practice; and

(c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner
laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the ve1ifica-
tion of pleadings :
B
Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice,
the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the
prescribed from in supp01t of the allegation of such comtpt practice
a11d the parliculars thereof.

(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed C
by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition."

(emphasis supplied)

Sectio11-86( 1)
D
"86. Tiial of e/ectio11 petitio11- (1) The High Court shall dismiss an
election petition which does not comply with the provisions of
section 81 or section 82 or section 117."

There are innumerable decisions of this Court which have construed E
the above statutory provisions. It is hardly necessary to refer to all of them.
One of the latest decisions is FA. Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors., [1991] 3
SCC 375. A mere look of the proviso to Section 83(1) along with Section
83(2) will show that the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83(1)
also forms part of the election petition. The election petition is in truth and
reality one document, consisting of two parts -- one being the election F
petition proper and the other being the affidavit referred to in the proviso
to Section 83(1) of the Act. So, the copy of the election petition required
to be filed under Section 81(3) read along with Section 83 will include a
copy of the affidavit. See : M. Kama/am v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, AIR
(1978) SC 840 (844)
G
"' Qazi, J. in Pwuslwttam v. Retwning Office1; Amravati and Ors., AIR
• (1992) Bombay 227 has, after referring to the above decision of this this
Court along with the other decisions and an unreported decision of the
Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1990, held that the
absence of the endorsement of the Notary 011 the copy of the affidavit H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A accompanying the election petition renders the copy as not conforming to
Section 81(3) of the Act, and the election petition is liable to be dismissed
for the said omission.

Jn my opinion, the above decision lays down the law correctly and is
B squarely applicable herein. In particular, the following observations in the
unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 2
of 1990 quoted in paragraph No. 12 of the judgment of Qazi, J. are
instructive and furnish sufficient basis to reach the said conclusion. The
observations are to the following effect :

c "50. That, however, leaves one question to be considered and it is
whether the copy of the endorsement "Affirmed and signed before
me" by the Notary, designation of the Notary and the stamped
endorsement regarding the affirmation which he made at the time
of the making of the affidavit, were necessary and essential parts.
D of the document and if these are omitted from the copy furnished,
that would render the copy, which is furnished, incomplete, and
the defect would be so glaring as to negative the inference that the
copy was furnished. When Form No. 25 prescribes a particular
form and the copy of that affidavit is to be furnished, it seems to
me that the endorsement of the authority before whom the affir-
E mation was made, together with his official designation and the
stamped endorsement, are also essential and without them the
copy cannot be regarded as true copy. It is not merely the contents
of the affidavit which brings sanctity to the document but the
affimiation that has been made, and without the affinnation, it can
F be 1w affidavit at all. I am not impressed by the submission of Shri
Bobde that these endorsements were merely formal, because what
is required under the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.83 is an
•
affidavit, and it should be possible for the respondent to ascertain
whether, in fact, the contents were sworn, affirmed and signed
before the Magistrate or the Notary or the person in whose
G presence the swearing of the affirmation was made, had authority
to administer oath. The respondent will not be in a position to
point out that the person, who is said to have administered the
oath, was not in existence or hatl no authority to administer the
oath or that the signature and the endorsement on the document
H purported to have been made by the alleged authority were fake.
DR. SMT. SHIPRAv. S.L. KHOIWAL [PARIPOORNAN,J.] 1191

If the copies of the affidavit are not faithful and do not include A
these endorsements, a valuable right of the respondent is taken
away and considering the purpose which the copy of the endorse-
ment would serve, it cannot be said that this portion would not be
integral part of the affidavit. Since these details form an integral
part of the affidavit, furnishing a copy without that portion would B
not be furnishing a complete copy, and in that event, merely
because the returned candidate made an endorsement that it was
a true copy, it cannot be regarded as a true copy. Considering the
purpose that is to be served, I do not think that the lapse can be
regarded as inconsequential."

(emphasis supplied)
c
With respect, I would adopt the said observations as my own. The
appeals deserve to be dismissed.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.