G.M. SIDDESHWARversusPRASANNA KUMAR

                     [2013] 4 S.C.R. 1107


                     G.M. SIDDESHWAR                                  A
                                v.
                   PRASANNA KUMAR
        (Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2013 etc.)
                       MARCH 08, 2013
                                                                      B
   [R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND MADAN B.
                    LOKUR, JJ.]

    Election Laws:
                                                                      c
      Election petition - Alleging resort to corrupt practice by
the returned candidate - Whether imperative to file additional
affidavit as required under Or. VI r.15(4) CPC, in addition to
the affidavit as required by proviso to s. 83(1) of the
Representation of the People Act - Held: The Act does not             0
mandate filing of an additional affidavit, but requires only
verification - Hence additional affidavit u!Or. VI r.15(4) is not
required - A composite affidavit, both in support of the
averments made in the petition and with regard to allegation
of corrupt practices would be sufficient - Representation of the      E
People Act, 1951 - s.83(1) - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r.15(4).

      Election Petition - Maintainability - Petition whether liable
to summary dismissal if affidavit is not in statutory form - Held:
If there is substantial compliance with the statutory form,           F
petition cannot be dismissed summarily - Just because of the
defective affidavit, the petition, will not cease to be election
petition - The defects are curable - Representation of the
People Act, 1951 - s. 83 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 -
r.94-A, Form No.25.                                                   G

     The questions for consideration in the present
appeals were whether in order to maintain an election
petition (wherein resort to corrupt practices were alleged
                              1107                                    H
    1108   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A against the returned candidate), was it imperative for the
  election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of Or. VI
  r.15(4) CPC, in support of the averments made in the
  election petition, in addition to an affidavit as required by
  the proviso to s.83(1) of Representation of the People Act,
B 1951; and that whether an election petition is liable to be
  dismissed summarily, if an affidavit filed in support of the
  allegations of corrupt practices of returned candidate
  was not in the Statutory Form No.25 as prescribed by the
  Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
c       Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. A plain and simple reading of Section
  83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  clearly indicates that the requirement of an 'additional'
D affidavit is not to be found therein. While the requirement
  of "also" filing an affidavit in support of pleadings filed
  under the CPC may be mandatory in terms of Order VI
  Rule 15(4) of the CPC, the affidavit is not a part of the
  verification of the pleadings - both are quite different.
E While the Act does require a verification of the pleadings,
  the plain language of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act does not
  require an affidavit in support of the pleadings in an
  election petition. The Court is being asked to read a
  requirement that does not exist in Section 83(1)(c) of the
F Act. [Para 30] [1122-D-F]
        P.A. Mohammed Riyas vs. M.K. Raghavan and Ors.
    (2012) 5 SCC511: 2012 (4) SCR 56 - disapproved.

      Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC
G 757: 1995 (3) SCR 964; Mohan Singh vs. Amar Singh,
  (1998) 6 SCC 686: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 - referred to.

      163'" Report of the Law Commission of India (LC/) on the
  Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997 - referred
H to.
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                  1109


     1.2. The procedure of filing a composite affidavit, both   A
in support of the averments made in the election petition
and with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices by
the returned candidate, is not contrary to law and cannot
be faulted. Such a composite affidavit would not only be
in substantial compliance with the requirements of the          B
Act but would actually be in full compliance thereof. The
filing of two affidavits is not warranted by the Act nor is
it necessary, especially when a composite affidavit can
achieve the desired result. [Para 34) [1124-D-E]

    1.3. The Court must make a fine balance between the         C
purity of the election process and the avoidance of an
election petition being a source of annoyance to the
returned candidate and his constituents. Hence the
salutary intention of the Law Commission to ensure purity
in the litigation process must extend to an election            D
petition notwithstanding the mandate of Parliament as
expressed in Section 83 of the Act. [Para 35] [1124-F-G;
1125-C]
    Azhar Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315          E
: 1986 SCR 782 - relied on
     1.4. It cannot be said that the Order VI Rule 15 of the
CPC has been legislated by reference or by incorporation
into the Act for the reasons that on a plain reading of         F
Section 83 of the Act, only a verification and not an
affidavit in support of the averments in an election
petition is required, except when allegations of corrupt
practices are made by the election petitioner. Any
amendment in the CPC is of no consequence in this
regard unless the meaning of 'verification' is amended to       G
include an affidavit. [Para 37] [1126-8-D]
     Gimar Traders (3) vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC
1: 2011 (3) SCR 1 - referred to.
                                                                H
    1110    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A      2.1. As long as there is substantial compliance with
  the statutory form, there is no reason to summarily
  dismiss an election petition on this ground. However, an
  opportunity must be given to the election petitioner to
  cure the defect. Further, merely because the affidavit may
B be defective, it cannot be said that the petition filed is not
  an election petition as understood by the Representation
  of the People Act, 1951. [Para 3] [1113-E-F]

      2.2. Section 86 of the Act makes no reference to
  Section 83 thereof and so, prima facie, an election petition
C cannot be summarily dismissed under Section 86 of the
  Act for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 83
  thereof. [Para 42] [1129-G-H]
      Ponnala Lakshmaiah vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy (2012)
D 7 SCC 788:2012 (6) SCR 851; Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwal
  Singh (1972) 1 SCC214: 1972 (3) SCR 742; Sardar
  Harcharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh Darshan Singh (2004) 11
  SCC 196: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 682; G. Mallikarjunappa
  and Anr. vs. Shamanur Shivashankarappa and Ors.(2001) 4
E SCC 428 - relied on.
        2.3. Although non-compliance with the provisions of
   Section 83 of the Act is a curable defect, yet there must
   be substantial compliance with the provisions thereof.
   However, if there is total and complete non-compliance
F with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, then the
   petition cannot be described as an election petition and
 • may be dismissed at the threshold. [Para 55] [1134-C-D]
       Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh
G Rathore and Ors.(1963) 3 SCR 573; Ch. Subba Rao vs.
  Member, Election Tribunal.Hyderabad (1964) 6 SCR 213 -
  followed.
       T.M. Jacob vs. C. Poulose and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 274:
  1999 (2) SCR 659; V. Narayanaswamy vs. C.P.
H Thirunavukkarasu (2000) 2 SCC 294: 2000 (1) SCR 292; Anil
      GM. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                      1111


Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009)             A
9 sec 310: 2009 (14) SCR 10 - relied on.

     2.4. In the present case, the affidavitfiled by the election
petitioner in compliance with the requirements of the
proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was not an integral part
                                                                    8
of the election petition, and no such case was set up. It is
also clear that the affidavit was in substantial compliance
with the requirements of the law. Therefore, the High Court
was quite right in coming to the conclusion thatthe affidavit
not being in the prescribed format of Form No.25 and with
a defective verification were curable defects and that an           C
opportunity ought to be granted to the election petitioner
to cure the defects. [Para 65] [1137-F-G]

     Ponna/a Lakshmaiah vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy (2012)
7 SCC 788:2012 (6) SCR 851; Sahodrabai Rai vs. Ram                  D
Singh Aharwar (1968) 3SCR 13; M. Kama/am vs. Dr. V. A.
Syed Mohammed (1978) 2 SCC 659: 1978 (3) SCR 446;
F.A. Sapa and Ors. vs. Singora and Ors.(1991) 3 SCC 375:
1991 (2) SCR 752 ; R.P. Moidutty vs. P. T. Kunju Mohammad
and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 481; Umesh Challiyil/ vs. K.P.                E
Rajendran (2008) 11 SCC 740: 2008 (3) SCR 457 - relied
on.

    F.A. Sapa and Ors. vs. Singora and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC
395 - referred to.
                                                                    F
                      Case Law Reference:
 2012 (4) SCR 56                  disapproved         Para 3
 (2000) 1 sec 481                 referred to         Para 16
 (1991) 3 sec 395                 referred to         Para 17
                                                                    G

 1995 (3) SCR 964                 referred to         Para 32
 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 252          referred to         Para 33
 2011 (3) SCR 1                   referred to         Para 36       H
    1112    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   2012 (6) SCR 851              relied on          Para 41
    1972 (3) SCR 742              relied on          Para 42
    1986 SCR 782                  relied on          Para 43
    c2001) 4 sec 428              relied on          Para 45
B
    2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 682       relied on          Para 46
    (1963) 3 SCR 573              followed           Para 49
     (1964) 6 SCR 213             followed           Para 51
C    1999 (2) SCR 659             relied on          Para 52
     2000 (1) SCR 292             relied on          Para 53
     2009 (14) SCR 10             relied on          Para 54
     (1968) 3 SCR 13              relied on          Para 57
D
     1991 (2) SCR 752             relied on          Para 61
     2008 (3) SCR 457             relied on          Para 64

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E 2250-2251 of 2013.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 24.02.2010 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Misc. Civil No. 386 and
    1431 of 2010 in Election Petition No. 2 of 2009.
F                               WITH
    Civil Appeal Nos. 2252-2255 of 2013.

       V. Giri, G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma (For Anjana
    Chandrashekar) for the Appellant.
G
        Basava Prabhu Patil, Rajesh Mahale, Krutin R. Joshi,
    Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H       MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
      G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                      1113
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
     2. The principal question of law raised for our                  A
consideration is whether, to maintain an election petition, it is
imperative for an election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms
of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in
support of the averments made in the election petition in
addition to an affidavit (in a case where resort to corrupt           B
practices have been alleged against the returned candidate)
as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. In our opinion, there
is no such mandate in the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and a reading of P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K.                     c
Raghavan & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 511 which suggests to the
contrary, does not lay down correct law to this limited extent.

     3. Another question that has arisen is that if an affidavit
filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practices of a
returned candidate is not in the statutory Form No. 25                D
prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, whether the
election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. In our
opinion, as long as there is substantial compliance with the
statutory form, there is no reason to summarily dismiss an
election petition on this ground. However, an opportunity must        E
be given to the election petitioner to cure the defect. Further,
merely because the affidavit may be defective, it cannot be said
that the petition filed is not an election petition as understood
by the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
                                                                      F
The facts:

    4. The challenge in these appeals is to a judgment and
order dated 24th February 2010 passed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Miscellaneous Civil
No. 386/2010 and Miscellaneous Civil No. 1431/2010 in                 G
Election Petition No.2/2009. The decision is reported as
Prasanna Kumar v. G.M. Siddeshwar & Ors., 2010 (6) KarLJ
78.
      5. In Miscellaneous Civil No. 386/2010 the appellant            H
    1114         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A (Siddeshwar) sought the dismissal/rejection of the election
  petition challenging his election to the 15th Lok Sabha from 13,
  Davangere Lok Sabha Constituency in the election held on 13th
  April 2009. It was submitted in the application that the
  provisions of Section 81 (3) and Section 83 of the
B Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred
  to as the Act) had not been complied with and therefore, in view
  of Section 86 of the Act read with Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the
  Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC),
  the election petition ought to be rejected/dismissed at the
c threshold.

         6. For the present purposes, we are concerned with
    Section 83 and Section 86 of the Act and to the extent they are
    relevant, they read as follows:

D       "83. Contents of petition.-(1) An election petition-

           (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
E                 that the petitioner alleges, 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
F
           (c)    shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
                  manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
                  1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:

              Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt
G       practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an
        affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation
        of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

             {2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition snail also
H       be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                      1115
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

    manner as the petition."                                         A

    "86. Trial of election petitions.-(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.

          Explanation.-An order of the High Court dismissing         B
    an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed
    to be an order made under clause (a) of Section 98.

     (2) to (7) xxx xxx xxx [presently not relevant]"

     7. Among the grounds urged in the High Court and
                                                                     c
reiterated before us were that the proviso to Section 83(1) of
the Act requires an affidavit to be filed in the prescribed form
in support of the allegations of corrupt practice and the
particulars thereof. Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules,
                                                                     0
1961 prescribes Form No. 25 as the format affidavit. According
to Siddeshwar, the affidavit filed by the election petitioner
(Prasanna Kumar) did not furnish the material particulars on the
basis of which allegations of corrupt practice were made and
also that it carried a defective verification and therefore it was
not an affidavit that ought to be recognized as such.                E

     8. On the issue of non-compliance with the format affidavit,
the High Court was of the view that though there was no
verbatim compliance, but the affidavit filed by Prasanna Kumar
was in substantial compliance with the prescribed format.            F
Consequently, this contention was rejected. The High Court
subsequently dealt with the absence of material particulars in
the affidavit along with the second application.

      9. The High Court also considered the contention that the
verification in the affidavit in Form No.25 was defective but        G
concluded that it was a curable defect and therefore, an
opportunity should be given to Prasanna Kumar to cure the
defect. It was held that if the defect is not cured the election
petition is liable to be dismissed.
                                                                     H
    1116     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A      10. It was also contended that in view of Section 83(1}(c)
  of the Act, an election petition is required to be verified in the
  manner laid down in the CPC for the verification of pleadings.
  Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC requires that the person
  verifying the pleadings shall also furnish an affidavit in support
B of the pleadings. In the election petition, such an affidavit was
  not filed despite the affidavit being an integral part of the
  election petition. For this reason also, the election petition ought
  to be dismissed at the threshold.

        11. In this regard, the High Court was of the view that there
C was no necessity of the election petitioner filing any other
  affidavit in support of the election petition and that the affidavit
  filed by Prasanna Kumar in Form No.25 substantially complied
  with the requirements of Rule 94-A of the Rules.

D       12. It was finally contended that Prasanna Kumar had
   leveled allegations of corrupt practices against Siddeshwar
   without any material particulars. As such, the election petition
   did not disclose a complete cause of action and was liable to
  ·be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the CPC. This
E contention was considered with the second application.

        13. In Miscellaneous Civil No. 1431/2010 Siddeshwar
  invoked the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC for
  striking out some paragraphs of the election petition on the
  ground that allegations of corrupt practice were scandalous and
F vexatious. It was contended that on a deletion of the offending
  paragraphs, the election petition would not survive.

       14. In regard to the objections raised, the High Court was
  of the opinion that some of the allegations made against
G Siddeshwar alleging corrupt practices did not contain material
  particulars apart from being vague and deficient. Consequently,
  a few paragraphs of the election petition were struck off by the
  Court under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC. The remaining
  paragraphs were retained since the High Court was of the view
H that they required trial and could not be struck off at the initial
     GM. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                       1117
             [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

stage. Consequently, the objections regarding absence of             A
material particulars and absence of a cause of action were
rejected.

     15. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed
by the High Court, Siddeshwar has preferred these appeals.           8
Reference to a larger Bench:

     16. These matters were earlier heard by a Bench of two
learned judges when it was contended by learned counsel for
Siddeshwar, relying upon P.A. Mohammed Riyas (decided by             C
a Bench of two learned judges) that since Prasanna Kumar had
not filed an 'additional' affidavit as required by Order VI Rule
15(4) of the CPC in support of the election petition, the High
Court ought to have dismissed it at the threshold. Learned
counsel placed reliance on R.P. Moidutty v. P. T. Kunju              o
Mohammad and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 481 in support of his
contention that an election petition could be dismissed at the
threshold if it did not disclose a cause of action.

     17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
Prasanna Kumar relied upon a larger Bench decision in F.A.           E
Sapa & Ors. v. Singora & Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 395 and
contended that Mohammed Riyas was not in consonance with
that decision. Reliance was also placed on G. Mallikarjunappa
& Anr. v. Shamanur Shivashankarappa & Ors., (2001) 4 SCC
428 to contend that an election petition is not liable to be         F
dismissed at the threshold under Section 86 of the Act for non-
compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. It was
contended that any defect in non-compliance with the provisions
of Section 83 of the Act is a curable defect which can be
removed and judged at the trial of the election petition.            G
    18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
considering the view expressed in Mohammed Riyas which
apparently proceeded on the basis that in addition to an affidavit
in Form No.25, an election petitioner was also required to           H
    1118      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   furnish an 'additional' affidavit in support of the election petition
    in terms of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC, it was felt that the
    issues raised ought be heard by a larger Bench of at least three
    Judges.

        19. It was also noted that in Mallikarjunappa, a Bench of
8
  three judges of this Court held that an election petition was not
  liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act
  for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 thereof. It
  was observed that Mallikarjunappa had not been referred to
C or considered in Mohammed Riyas.

          20. Accordingly, by an order passed on 19th July 2012 the
    issues raised were referred to a larger Bench of three judges.
    It is under these circumstances that the Special Leave Petitions
    were placed before us for consideration.
D
    (i) Affidavit in terms of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC:

       21. The submission made by learned counsel is to the
  effect that in addition to an affidavit required to be filed in Form
  No.25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Rules in support of
E allegations made of corrupt practices by the returned
  candidate, an election petitioner is also required to file an
  affidavit in support of the election petition keeping in mind the
  requirement of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC.

F        22. Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC reads as follows:

         "15. Verification of pleadings.- (1) Save as otherwise
         provided by any law for the time being in force, every
         pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one
         of the parties pleading or by some other person proved
G        to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the
         facts of the case.

               (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference
         to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he
H
       G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                           1119
                [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)

      verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon               A
      information received and believed to be true.

            (3) The verification shall be signed by the person
      making it and shall state the date on which and the place
      at which it was signed.
                                                                            B
            (4) The person verifying the pleading shall also furnish
      an affidavit in support of his pleadings."

      23. A plain reading of Rule 15 suggests that a verification
 of the plaint is necessary. In addition to the verification, the           c
 person verifying the plaint is "also" required to file an affidavit
 in support of the pleadings. Does this mean, as suggested by
 learned counsel for Siddeshwar that Prasanna Kumar was
 obliged to file two affidavits - one in support of the allegations
 of corrupt practices and the other in support of the pleadings?            D

       24. A reading of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act makes it clear
 that what is required of an election petitioner is only that the
 verification should be carried out in the manner prescribed in
 the CPC. That Order VI Rule 15 requires an affidavit "also" to
 be filed does not mean that the verification of a plaint is                E
 incomplete if an affidavit is not filed. The affidavit, in this context,
 is a stand-alone document.

      25. Mohammed Riyas dealt with the issue whether the
 election petitioner is required to file two affidavits - one affidavit     F
 in support of the allegations of corrupt practices and the second
 affidavit in compliance with the requirements of Order VI Rule
 15(4) of the CPC. This is apparent from the submissions
 advanced by learned counsel appearing in the case.

       26. It was contended by the election petitioner that two             G
  affidavits would be necessary in an election petition only where
  the election petitioner wanted the election of the returned
  candidate to be set aside on the ground of commission of
  corrupt practices under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act as well as
, on other grounds as set out in Section 100(1) of the Act. In other        H
    1120     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A words, the argument was that two affidavits were required to
  be filed by the election petitioner. It is important to note that it
  was not argued (as in the present case) that Order VI Rule 15(4)
  of the CPC does not require the filing of an affidavit as a part
  of the requirement of verifying the election petition. An
B alternative contention was put forward that a single affidavit,
  satisfying the requirement of the Act, could also be filed. The
  contention put forward was as follows:

        "The learned counsel submitted that two affidavits would
        be necessary only where an election petitioner wanted the
c       election to be set aside both on grounds of commission
        of one or more corrupt practices under Section 100(1)(b)
        of the Act and other grounds as set out in Section 100(1).
        In such a case, two affidavits could possibly be required,
        one under Order 6 Rule 15(4) CPC and another in Form
D       25. However, even in such a case, a single affidavit that
        satisfies the requirements of both the provisions could be
        filed. In any event, when the election petition was based
        entirely on allegations of corrupt practices, filing of two
        affidavits over the selfsame matter would render one of
E       them otiose, which proposition was found acceptable by
        the Karnataka High Court in Prasanna Kumar v. G.M.
        Siddeshwar [2010 (6) KarLJ 78]."

         27. It was argued on behalf of the returned candidate that
F   the election petitioner is required to file an affidavit in support
    of the pleadings and another affidavit in support of the
    allegations of corrupt practices by the returned candidate. In
    other words, the election petitioner is required to file two
    affidavits. The contention urged was as follows:

G        "Mr Rao contended that Section 83(1 )(c) of the above Act
         requires the election petition to be signed by the petitioner
         and verified in the manner specified in CPC for the
         verification of pleadings. Referring to Order 6 Rule 15 of
         the Code, Mr Rao submitted that sub-rule (4) requires that
H        the person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                        1121
              [MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]

    affidavit in support of his pleadings, which was a                 A
    requirement independent of the requirement of a separate
    affidavit with respect to each corrupt practice alleged, as
    mandated by the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the above
    Act."
                                                                       B
    28. The conclusions of this Court are given in paragraphs
45 and 46 of the Report in the following words:

    "45. Of course, it has been submitted and accepted that
    the defect was curable and such a proposition has been
    upheld in the various cases cited by Mr Venugopal,                 C
    beginning with the decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam
    Ram Kumar case [AIR 1964 SC 1545) and subsequently
    followed in F.A. Sapa case [(1991) 3 SCC 375], Sardar
    Harcharan Singh Brar case [(2004) 11 SCC 196] and
    K.K. Ramachandran Master case [(2010) 7 SCC 428),                  D
    referred to hereinbefore. In this context, we are unable to
    accept Mr Venugopal's submission that despite the fact
    that the proviso to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act provides
    that where corrupt practices are alleged, the election
    petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the          E
    prescribed form, it could not have been the intention of the
    legislature that two affidavits would be required, one under
    Order 6 Rule 15(4) CPC and the other in Form 25. We
    are also unable to accept Mr Venugopal's submission that
    even in a case where the proviso to Section 83(1) was              F
    attracted, a single affidavit would be sufficient to satisfy the
    requirements of both the provisions.

    46. Mr Venugopal's submission that, in any event, since
    the election petition was based entirely on allegations of
    corrupt practices, filing of two affidavits in respect of the      G
    selfsame matter, would render one of them redundant, is
    also not acceptable. As far as the decision in F.A. Sapa
    case is concerned, it has been clearly indicated that the
    petition, which did not strictly comply with the requirements
    of Section 83 of the 1951 Act, could not be said to be an          H
    1122     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R


A       e!ection petition as contemplated in Section 81 and would
        attract dismissal under Section 86(1) of the 1951 Act. On
        the other hand, the failure to comply with the proviso to
        Section 83(1) of the Act rendered the election petition
        ineffective, as was held in Hardwari Lal case [(1972) 1
B       sec 214] and the various other cases cited by Mr P.P.
        Rao."

        29. Unfortunately, the submissions made by the election
  petitioner were not discussed, but were simply rejected. No
  reasons have, unfortunately, been given by this Court for arriving
C at the conclusions that it did and rejecting the contentions of
  learned counsel for the election petitioner.

        30. It seems to us that a plain and simple reading of
  Section 83(1 )(c) of the Act clearly indicates that the requirement
D of an 'additional' affidavit is not to be found therein. While the
  requirement of "also" filing an affidavit in support of pleadings
  filed under the CPC may be mandatory in terms of Order VI
  Rule 15(4) of the CPC, the affidavit is not a part of the
  verification of the pleadings - both are quite different. While the
E Act does require a verification of the pleadings, the plain
  language of Section 83(1 )(c) of the Act does not require an
  affidavit in support of the pleadings in an election petition. We
  are being asked to read a requirement that does not exist in
  Section 83(1)(c) of the Act.

F Recommendation of the Law Commission:

       31. To get over the difficulty posed by the plain language
  of Section 83 of the Act, learned counsel for Siddeshwar
  referred to the imperatives of an affidavit in support of
G statements of fact made in a plaint, which would hopefully give
  some sanctity to the averments made therein. Reliance was
  placed on judgments of this Court as well as on the 163rd
  Report of the Law Commission of India (LCI) on the Code of
  Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997.
H
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                       1123
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
    32. In this context, in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of              A
Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 it was held:
    "The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not
    only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due
    course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency
                                                                      8
    to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration
    of justice.......... The stream of justice has to be kept clean
    and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with
    sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that
    no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the
    court and interfere with the due course of judicial               C
    proceedings or the administration of justice."
A similar view was expressed in Mohan Singh v. Amar Singh,
(1998) 6 SCC 686. The LCI referred to both these decisions
and proposed the insertion of sub-section (2) in Section 26 of
                                                                      0
the CPC making it obligatory upon a plaintiff to file an affidavit
in support of facts stated in the plaint. A similar provision was
proposed in Order VI of the CPC by inserting sub-Rule (4) in
Rule 15 thereof. In this context, the LCI had this to say:
    "2.6.1. The response of members of the Bench as well as           E
    the Bar has been uniformly against the above proposals.
    The general view expressed by them is that such a
    provision would only add to the delays in disposal of suits.
    It was submitted that there are enough provisions in the
    existing law to deal with false and malicious averments in
                                                                      F
    the pleadings and that this additional requirement would
    not make any difference ..... .
    "2.6.2. The Law Commission is, however, of the opinion
    that the proposed amendments are salutary and may, at
    least to some extent, check the tendency to make false:           G
    averments in the pleadings ........ This tendency has
    certainly to be checked. Even if the parties in two to five
    per cent cases could be dealt with appropriately for making
    false statements in the pleadings, it would greatly help in
    arresting this tendency ...... "
                                                                      H
    1124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A       33. While the necessity of an affidavit in support of facts
  stated in a plaint may be beneficial and may have salutary
  results, but we have to go by the law as it is enacted and not
  go by the law as it ought to be. The CPC no doubt requires
  that pleadings be verified and an affidavit "also" be filed in
B support thereof. However, Section 83(1)(c) of the Act merely
  requires an election petitioner to sign and verify the contents
  of the election petition in the manner prescribed by the CPC.
  There is no requirement of the election petitioner "also" filing
  an affidavit in support of the averments made in the election
C petition except when allegations of corrupt practices have been
  made.

        34. In any event, as in the present case, the same result
  has been achieved by the election petitioner filing a composite
  affidavit, both in support of the averments made in the election
D petition and with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices
  by the returned candidate. This procedure is not contrary to law
  and cannot be faulted. Such a composite affidavit would not only
  be in substantial compliance with the requirements of the Act
  but would actually be in full compliance thereof. The filing of two
E affidavits is not warranted by the Act nor is it necessary,
  especially when a composite affidavit can achieve the desired
  result.

          35. The Court must make a fine balance between the purity
F   of the election process and the avoidance of an election
    petition being a source of annoyance to the returned candidate
    and his constituents. In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986
    (Supp) sec 315 this Court observed (in the context of summary
    dismissal of an election petition):

G       "So long as the sword of Damocles of the election petition
        remains hanging an elected member of the legislature
        would not feel sufficiently free to devote his whole-hearted
        attention to matters of public importance which clamour for
        his attention in his capacity as an elected representative
H       of the concerned constituency. The time and attention
      GM. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                        1125
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

     demanded by his elected office will have to be diverted to        A
     matters pertaining to the contest of the election petition.
     Instead of being engaged in a campaign to relieve the
     distress of the people in general and of the residents of
     his constituency who voted him into office, and instead of
     resolving their problems, he would be engaged in                  B
     campaign to establish that he has in fact been duly
     elected."

In light of the above, it is not possible to accept the view that
the salutary intention of the LCI to ensure purity in the litigation
process must extend to an election petition notwithstanding the        C
mandate of Parliament as expressed in Section 83 of the Act.

Legislation by reference:

      36. The final cqntention urged under this subject was that       0
in view of the language used in Section 83(1 )(c) of the Act, the
doctrine of legislation by reference would need to be invoked
in as much as any amendment to the CPC would be applicable
to the working of the Act. It was argued that since an
amendment was made to Rule 15(4) of Order VI of the CPC,
                                                                       E
that amendment has been legislated by reference in the Act and
so the election petitioner would be bound by the terms thereof
and would, therefore, not only need to sign and verify the
contents of an election petition, but also file an affidavit in
support thereof. Reliance was placed on a Constitution Bench
decision in Gimar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011)          F
3 SCC 1. In that case, after an analysis of the entire case law
on the subject, the Constitution Bench held:

    "Having perused and analysed the various judgments cited
    at the Bar we are of the considered view that this rule [of        G
    legislation by reference] is bound to have exceptions and
    it cannot be stated as an absolute proposition of law that
    wherever legislation by reference exists, subsequent
    amendments to the earlier law shall stand implanted into
    the later law without analysing the impact of such                 H
    1126    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A       incorporation on the object and effectuality of the later law.
        The later law being the principal law, its object, legislative
        intent and effective implementation shall always be of
        paramount consideration while determining the
        compatibility of the amended prior law with the later law
B       as on relevant date."

        37. We are not inclined to debate the contention whether
  Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC has been legislated by reference
  or by incorporation into the Act for the reasons already
  indicated above, namely, that on a plain reading of Section 83
C of the Act, only a verification and not an affidavit in support of
  the averments in an election petition is required, except when
  allegations of corrupt practices are made by the election
  petitioner. Any amendment in the CPC is of no consequence
  in this regard unless the meaning of 'verification' is amended
D to include an affidavit.

    Defective affidavit:

        38. What exactly are the contents of an affidavit in Form
E   No.25 as prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Rules? The fonmat
    reads as follows:

                                   "Form 25
                                (see Rule 94A)
                                  AFFIDAVIT
F
        I, ......................... ,the petitioner in the accompanying
        election petition calling in question the election of Shri/
        Shrimati ...................... (respondent No ................... .
        in the said petition) make solemn affirmation/oath and say-

G       (a) that the statements made in paragraphs ............. of
        the accompanying election petition about the commission
        of the corrupt practice of* .................. and the
        particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in
        paragraphs .................... of the same petition and in
H
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                               1127
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

    paragraphs .................. of the Schedule annexed                      A
    thereto are true to my knowledge;

    (b) that the statements made in paragraphs ................... .
    of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt
    practice of* .................. and the particulars of such
                                                                               B
    corrupt practice given in paragraphs ................... of the
    said petition and in paragraphs ....................... of the
    Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information:

    (c)
                                                                               c
    {d)

    (e)

    (f)
                                                                               D
    etc.

    Signature of deponent

    Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri/ Shrimati .................. .
    at .............this .......... day of ............... 20............ ..   E

    Before me, Magistrate of the first class/

    Notary/Commissioner of Oaths.

    *Here specify the name of the corrupt practice."                           F

      39. Prasanna Kumar's affidavit accompanying the election
petition reads as follows:

                             "Form 25
                            (Rule 94-A)                                        G
           In The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
                      (Original Jurisdiction)
                   Election Petition No. 2/2009

    Between:                                                                   H
    1128   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A      Prasanna Kumar                                   .... Petitioner

                                    And

       Sri G.M. Siddeshwar and Ors .... Respondents

B                                Affidavit

       I, Prasanna Kumar, the petitioner in the accompanying
       Election petition, catting in question the election of Sri G.M.
       Siddeshwar (1st respondent in the said petition) make
       solemn and affirmation on oath and say-
c
       (a) That I am an elector in 13 Davanagere Lokasabha
       Constituency in Harihar Assembly Segment and I am fully
       aware and acquainted with the facts of the case and swear
       to this affidavit,
D
       (b) That the statements made in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7,
       8, 11, 12 and 13 & 14 of the accompanying Election
       Petition about the violation of the law during the conduct
       of election and the particulars mentioned in the above
       noted paragraphs are true to my knowledge and contents
E
       of paras 18, 19, 20 and 21 are based on legal advise;

       (c) That the statements made in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, 9,
       10, 15 and 16 of the accompanying Election Petition about
       the commission of electoral offence of corrupt practices
F      and the particulars mentioned in the said paragraphs of
       the petition are true to my knowledge and partly on
       Information.

       (d) That Annexures - 1 to 14 and 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24
       are true copies and 15, 16, 17, 21 are original copies.
G
                                                           Sd/-
                                      Signature of the Deponent
             Solemnly affirmed/sworn to by Sri Prasanna Kumar
                  at Bangalore, this the 18th day of June 2009.
H
      GM. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                       1129
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

     Sd/- Identified by me                                            A
     Sd/- corrections: (nil).
     sworn to before me"

      40. A perusal of the affidavit furnished by Prasanna Kumar
ex facie indicates that it was not in absolute compliance with        8
the format affidavit. However, we endorse the view of the High
Court that on a perusal of the affidavit, undoubtedly there was
substantial compliance with the prescribed format. It is correct
that the verification was also defective, but the defect is curable
and cannot be held fatal to the maintainability of the election       C
petition.

     41. Recently, in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap
Reddy, (2012) 7 SCC 788 the issue of a failure to file an
affidavit in accordance with the prescribed format came up for
consideration. This is what this Court had to say:                    D

    "The format of the affidavit is at any rate not a matter of
    substance. What is important and at the heart of the
    requirement is whether the election petitioner has made
    averments which are testified by him on oath, no matter in
                                                                      E
    a form other than the one that is stipulated in the Rules.
    The absence of an affidavit or an affidavit in a form other
    than the one stipulated by the Rules does not by itself
    cause any prejudice to the successful candidate so long
    as the deficiency is cured by the election petitioner by filing
                                                                      F
    a proper affidavit when directed to do so."

We have no reason to take a different view. The contention
urged by Siddeshwar is rejected.

(ii) Summary dismissal under Section 86 of the Act:                   G
     42. Undoubtedly, Section 86 of the Act makes no reference
to Section 83 thereof and so, prima facie, an election petition
cannot be summarily dismissed under Section 86 of the Act
for non-compliance of the provisions of Section p3 thereof. This
was briefly adverted to in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, (1972)       H
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A 1 sec 214 but that was in the context of dismissal of the
  election petition under the provisions of the CPC. The
  contention urged in Hardwari Lal was to the effect that since
  Section 83 of the Act does not find a mention in Section 86
  thereof, an election petition could not be summarily dismissed
B for non-compliance of Section 83. A three-judge Bench of this
  Court held that since an election petition is required to be tried
  as nearly as possible in accordance with the procedure
  applicable under the CPC to the trial of suits, an election
  petition could nevertheless be dismissed if it did not disclose
c a cause of action.
        43. The issue was, again, specifically raised in Azhar
    Hussain. The question considered was:

        "Since the Act does not provide for dismissal of an election
D       petition on the ground that material particulars necessary
        to be supplied in the election petition as enjoined by
        Section 83 of the Act are not incorporated in the election
        petition inasmuch as Section 86 of the Act which provides
        for summary dismissal of the petition does not advert to
E       Section 83 of the Act there is no power in the court trying
        election petitions to dismiss the petition even in exercise
        of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure."

         44. While answering this issue, this Court referred to
F   Hardwari Lal. It was held, relying on that decision that since
    powers under the CPC could be exercised by the Court, an
    election petition could be summarily dismissed if it did not
    disclose a cause of action. This is what this Court had to say:

        "In view of this pronouncement there is no escape from the
G       conclusion that an election petition can be summarily
        dismissed if it does not furnish cause of action in exercise
        of the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. So also
        it emerges from the aforesaid decision that appropriate
        orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil
H       Procedure can be passed if the. mandatory requirements
     G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                      1131
              [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
    enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the             A
    material facts in the election petition are not complied
    w~.·                                                         -
    45. In Mallikarjunappa the issue was considered yet again
and it was held:
                                                                     B
    "An election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine
    under Section 86(1) of the Act if the election petition does
    not comply with either the provisions of "Section 81 or
    Section 82 or Section 117 of the RP Act". The requirement
    of filing an affidavit along with an election petition, in the   C
    prescribed form, in support of allegations of corrupt
    practice is contained in Section 83(1) of the Act. Non-
    compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act,
    however, does not attract the consequences envisaged by
    Section 86(1) of the Act. Therefore, an election petition is     o
    not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of
    the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of
    Section 83(1) or (2) of the Act or of its proviso."

     46. More recently, the issue was again considered in            E
Ponnala Lakshmaiah and relying upon Sardar Harcharan
Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 196 it was
held:

    "Even otherwise the question whether non-compliance with
    the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act is fatal to the          F
    election petition is no longer res integra in the light of a
    three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Sardar
    Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh. In that case
    a plea based on a defective affidavit was raised before
    the High Court resulting in the dismissal of the election        G
    petition. In appeal against the said order, this Court held
    that non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83 of the
    Act did not attract an order of dismissal of an election
    petition in terms of Section 86 thereof. Section 86 of the
    Act does not provide for dismissal of an election petition       H
    1132     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A       on the ground that the same does not comply with the
        provisions of Section 83 of the Act. It sanctions dismissal
        of an election petition for non-compliance with Sections
        81, 82 and 117 of the Act only. Such being the position,
        the defect if any in the verification of the affidavit filed in
B       support of the petition was not fatal, no matter the proviso
        to Section 83(1) was couched in a mandatory form."

         47. The issue having been considered several times by
    this Court must now be allowed to rest at that.

C What is an election petition:

        48. However, another aspect of this contention is that if the
    provisions of Section 83 of the Act are not complied with, then
    the election petition that has been filed cannot truly be
    described as an election petition.
0
        49. In Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop
    Singh Rathore & Ors. (1963] 3 SCR 573, the Constitution
  Bench dealt with the issue whether non-compliance with the
  proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act was fatal to the
E maintainability of an election petition wherein allegations of
  corrupt practices were made. It was urged that the affidavit in
  respect of corrupt practices which accompanied the election
  petition was neither properly made nor in the prescribed form.
  A different facet of this argument was that an election petition
F must comply with the provisions of Section 83 thereof and if it
  did not, then it could not be called an election petition.

       50. The Constitution Bench agreed with the Election
  Tribunal that a defect in the verification of an affidavit "cannot
G be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioner's petition
  summarily, as the provisions of Section 83 are not necessarily
  to be complied with in order to make a petition valid and such
  affidavit can be allowed to be filed at a later stage also." In other
  words, non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1) of the
  Act was not 'fatal' to the maintainability of an election petition
H
      G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                       1133
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

and the defect could be remedied. It would follow that if an           A
election petition did not comply with the proviso to Section
83(1) of the Act, it would still be called an election petition.

      51. The broad principle laid down in Murarka was
somewhat restricted by another Constitution Bench decision             8
rendered in Ch. Subba Rao v. Member, Election Tribunal,
Hyderabad [1964] 6 SCR 213. In that case, the Constitution
Bench introduced two clear principles: firstly, that "if there is a
total and complete non compliance with the provisions of
Section 81 (3), the election petition might not be "an election        C
petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this
part" within Section 80 of the Act" and secondly, that "if there
is a substantial compliance with the requirement of Section
81 (3), the election petition cannot be dismissed by the Tribunal
under Section 90(3)."
                                                                       D
     52. In T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose & Ors., (1999) 4 SCC
274 this Court reiterated the doctrine of substantial compliance
as mentioned in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar and
Ch. Subba Rao and also introduced the doctrine of curability
on the principles contained in the CPC. It was held that the           E
defect in the affidavit in that case was curable and was not of
such a fatal nature as to attract dismissal of the election petition
at the threshold.

     53. The doctrine of substantial compliance as well as the
doctrine of curability were followed in V. Narayanaswamy v.
                                                                       F
C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, (2000) 2 SCC 294. This Court held
that a defect in verification of an affidavit is not fatal to the
election petition and it could be cured. Following Moidutty it was
held that if the election petition falls foul of Order VI Rule 16
and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and does not disclose a               G
cause of action then it has to be rejected at the threshold.

      54. Somewhat more recently, in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar
v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar, (2009) 9 SCC 310 this Court
reiterated this position in law and held:                              H
    1134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A       "The position is well settled that an election petition can
        be summarily dismissed if it does not furnish the cause of
        action in exercise of the power under the Code of Civil
        Procedure. Appropriate orders in exercise of powers
        under the Code can be passed if the mandatory
B       requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to
        incorporate the material facts in the election petition are
        not complied with."

        55. The principles emerging from these decisions are that
C although non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83 of
  the Act is a curable defect, yet there must be substantial
  compliance with the provisions thereof. However, if there is total
  and complete non-compliance with the provisions of Section
  83 of the Act, then the petition cannot be described as an
  election petition and may be dismissed at the threshold.
D
  Integral part of an election petition:

        56. An issue arises whether an affidavit required to be filed
  under the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act is an integral part
E of an election petition and, if so, whether the filing of a defective
  affidavit would be fatal to the maintainability of an election
  petition. This would, in a sense, be an exception to the general
  rule mentioned above regarding a defect under Section 83 of
  the Act being curable.

F      57. In Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar [1968] 3
    SCR 13 the question raised was as follows:

        "Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for
        contravention of Section 81 (3) of the Representation of
G       the People Act, 1951 as copy of Annexure 'A' to the petition
        was not given along with the petition for being served on
        the respondents."

       58. It was noted that the contents of the pamphlet, in
  translation, were incorporated in the election petition. It was also
H noted that the trial of an election petition has to follow, as far
      G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANN.A. KUMAR                       1135
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
as may be, the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, this Court              A
approached the problem by looking at the CPC to ascertain
what would have been the case if what was under
consideration was a suit and not the trial of an election petition.

     59. It was held that where the averments are too
                                                                         B
compendious for being included in an election petition, they may
be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition.
In such an event, these schedules or annexures would be an
integral part of the election petition and must, therefore, be
served on the respondents. This is quite distinct from
documents which may be annexed to the election petition by               C
way of evidence and so do not form an integral part of the
averments of the election petition and may not, therefore, be
served on the respondents.

     60. In M. Kama/am v. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed, (1978)                 D
2 SCC 659 this Court followed Sahodrabai Rai and held that
a schedule or an annexure which is an integral part of an
election petition must comply with the provisions of Section
83(2) of the Act. Similarly, the affidavit referred to in the proviso
to Section 83(1) of the Act where the election petition alleges          E
corrupt practices by the returned candidate also forms a part
of the election petition. If the affidavit, at the end of the election
petition is attested as a true copy, then there is sufficient
compliance with the requirement of Section 81 (3) of the Act and
would tantamount to attesting the election petition itself.              F

     61. F.A. Sapa and Others v. Singora and Others, (1991)
3 SCC 375 a three-judge Bench of this Court reviewed the
relevant provisions of the Act, Rule 94-A of the Rules, Form No.
25, the provisions of the CPC as well as the case law and
arrived at the following conclusions:                                    G

     "28. From the text of the relevant provisions of the R.P. Act,
     Rule 94-A and Form 25 as well as Order 6 Rule 15 and
     Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code and the resume of the case
     law discussed above it clearly emerges (i) a defect in the          H
    1136    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A       verification, if any, can be cured (ii) it is not essential that
        the verification clause at the foot of the petition or the
        affidavit accompanying the same should disclose the
        grounds or sources of information in regard to the
        averments or allegations which are based on information
B       believed to be true (iii) if the respondent desires better
        particulars in regard to such averments or allegations, he
        may call for the same in which case the petitioner may be
        required to supply the same and (iv) the defect in the
        affidavit in the prescribed Form 25 can be cured unless
c       the affidavit forms an integral part of the petition, in which
        case the defect concerning material facts will have to be
        dealt with, subject to limitation, under Section 81 (3) as
        indicated earlier. Similarly the court would have to decide
        in each individual case whether the schedule or annexure
0       referred to in Section 83(2) constitutes an integral part of
        the election petition or not; different considerations will
        follow in the case of the former as compared to those in
        the case of the latter."

        62. It was further laid down that even though a defective
E affidavit may not be fatal to the maintainability of an election
  petition, the High Court should ensure compliance before the
  parties go to trial so that the returned candidate can meet the
  allegations and is not taken by surprise at the trial.

F      63. What is the consequence of not curing the defect? In
  Moidutty a defect in verification of the election petition was
  pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written
  statement. Notwithstanding this, the election petitioner did not
  cure the defect. Under these circumstances it was held that until
G the defect in the verification was rectified the petition could not
  have been tried. Additionally, it was held that since there was
  a lack of material particulars regarding the allegations of corrupt
  practices, it was a case where the election petition ought to
  have been rejected at the threshold for non-compliance with the
H mandatory provisions of law as to pleadings.
      G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR                       1137
               [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
    64. This issue was again discussed in Umesh Chal/iyil/             A
v. K.P. Rajendran, (2008) 11 SCC 740 and this Court
suggested the following solution:

    "However, in fairness whenever such defects are pointed
    out then the proper course for the Court is not to dismiss         8
    the petition at the threshold. In order to maintain the sanctity
    of the election the Court should not take such a technical
    attitude and dismiss the election petition at the threshold.
    On the contrary after finding the defects, the Court should
    give proper opportunity to cure the defects and in case of
    failure to remove/cure the defects, it could result into           C
    dismissal on account of Order 6 Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule
    11 CPC. Though technically it cannot be dismissed under
    Section 86 of the Act of 1951 but it can be rejected when
    the election petition is not properly constituted as required
    under the provisions of.CPC but in the present case we             D
    regret to record that the defects which have been pointed
    out in this election petition were purely cosmetic and do
    not go to the root of the, matter and secondly even if the
    Court found them of serious nature then at least the Court
    should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify      E
    such defects."

      65. Applying these principles to the facts of the present
case, it seems quite clear that the affidavit filed by Prasanna
Kumar in compliance with the requirements of the proviso to            F
Section 83(1) of the Act was not an integral part of the election
petition, and no such case was set up. It also seems quite clear
that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with the
requirements of the law. Therefore, the High Court was quite
right in coming to the conclusion that the affidavit not being in      G
the prescribed format of Form No.25 and with a defective
verification were curable defects and that an opportunity ought
to be granted to Prasanna Kumar to cure the defects.

     66. No submissions were made with regard to the striking
out, in accordance with Order VI rule 16 of the CPC, of                H
    1138     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A specifically objectionable paragraphs in the election petition.
  In any event this is a matter for trial and we see no reason to
  take a view different from that taken by the High Court.

    Conclusion:
B       67. There is no merit in, these appeals and they are,
    accordingly dismissed, but without any costs.

    K.K.T.                                  Appeals dismissed.