P.A. MOHAMMED RIYASversusM.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.

                         [2012] 4 S.C.R. 56


A                    P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS
                                  v.
                     M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 10262 of 2010)
                          APRIL 27, 2012
B
        [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

       Representation of the People Act, 1951 - s. 83(1) proviso
  ands. 81 rlw ss. 100, 101 and 123- Election petition alleging
C corrupt practice - Maintainability of - In absence of affidavit
  in Form 25 as required under s. 83(1) rlw. r. 94A of Conduct
  of Election Rules - Held: In the absence of proper verification
  as contemplated in s. 83, cause of action cannot be said to
  be complete - Thus the petition is not maintainable - In a
o case where proviso to s. 83(1) was attracted, a single affidavit
  would not be sufficient and two affidavits would be required
  one under Or. VI r. 15(4) CPC and the other in Form 25 -
  Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - r. 94A - Code of Civil
  Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r. 15 (4).
E       The question for consideration in the present appeal
    was whether an election petition u/s. 81 r/w ss. 100, 101
    and 123 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not
    maintainable for want of complete cause of action in
    absence of the requisite affidavit in Form 25 as required
F   under proviso to s. 83(1) of the Act r/w r. 94A of the
    Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G        HELD: 1. As is evident from Section 83 of
    Representation of the People Act, 1951, the election
    petitioner is required to set forth full particulars of any
    corrupt practice that he alleges and the names of the
    parties involved therein and it further provides that the
H                                56
PA. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.            57


same is to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the A
manner laid down in CPC for the verification of
proceedings. The proviso makes it clear that where the
election petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the
petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the
prescribed form in support of the allegation of such B
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof and the
schedule or annexures to the petition shall also be signed
by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the
petition. In other words, when corrupt practices are
alleged in an election petition, the source of such c
allegations has to be disclosed and the same has to be
supported by an affidavit in support thereof. [Para 23] [71-
F-H; 72-A]

     2. In the present case, although allegations as to
corrupt practices alleged to have been employed by the D
respondent had been mentioned in the body of the
petition, the petition itself had not been verified in the
manner specified in Or. VI r. 15 CPC. Sub-Section (4) of
Section 123 of the Act defines "corrupt practice" and the
publication of various statements against the respondent E
which were not supported by affidavit, could not,
therefore, have been taken into consideration by the High
Court while considering the election petition. In the
absence of proper verification, the election petition was
incomplete as it did not contain a complete cause of F
action. [Para 24] [72-8-D]

     3. It is not correct to say that it could not have been
the intention of the legislature that two affidavits would
be required, one under Or. VI r. 15(4) CPC and the other G
in Form 25. It is also not correct to say that even in a case
where the proviso to Section 83(1) was attracted, a single
affidavit would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements
of both the provisions. Filing of two affidavits in respect
of the self-same matter, would not render one of them H
redundant. rPara 25) [72-F-H; 73-A]
    58       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2012] 4 S.C.R.


A        4. In the absence of proper verification, as
    contemplated in Section 83, it C_fillnot be said that the
    cause of action was complete. The consequences of
    Section 86 of the Act come into play immediately in view
    of Sub-Section (1) which relates to trial of election
B   petitions and provides that the High Court shall dismiss
    the election petition which does not comply with the
    provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of
    the Act. Although, Section 83 has not been mentioned in
    Sub-Section (1) of Section 86, in the absence of proper
c   verification, it must be held that the provisions of Section
    81 had also not been fulfilled and the cause of action for
    the Election Petition remained incomplete. The Petitioner
    had the opportunity of curing the defect, but it chose not
    to do so. [Para 26] [73-D-F]
D         Hardwari Lal vs. Kanwa/ Singh (1972) 1 SCC 214: 1972
    (3) SCR742; M. Kama/am vs. Dr. V. A. Syed Mohammed
    1978 (2) sec 659: 1978(3) SCR 446; R.P. Moidutty vs.
    P. T. Kunju Mohammad and Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 481; V.
    Narayanaswamy vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu (2000) 2 SCC
E   294: 2000 (1) SCR 292; RavinderSingh vs. Janmeja Singh
    and Ors. 2000) 8 SCC 191: 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 331; Azhar
    Hussain vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 Supp SCC 315;Samant N.
    Ba/krishna and Anr. vs. George Fernandez and Ors. (1969)
    3 SCC 238: 1969 (3) SCR 603; Dhartipakar Madan Lal
F   Agarwal vs. RajivGandhi (1987) Supp SCC 93; Anil
    Vasudev Salgaonkar vs. NareshKushali Shigaonkar (2009)
    9 SCC 310: 2009 (14) SCR 10; Dev Kanta Barooah vs. Go/ok
    Chandra Baruahand Ors.(1970) 1 SCC 392: 1970 (3) SCR
    662 - relied on.
G
        Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar vs. Roop Singh
    Rathore and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1545: 1964 SCR 573; F.A.
    Sapa and Ors. vs. Singora and Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375: 1991
    (2) SCR 752; Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs. Sukh
H   Darshan Singh and Ors. (2004) 11SCC196: 2004 (5) Suppl.
    SCR 682; K.K. Ramachandran Master vs. M. V.
P.A. MOHAMMED RIVAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.             59


Sreyamakumar and Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 428: 2010 (7) SCR         A
712 - referred to.

     Prasanna Kumar vs. G.M. Siddeshwar AIR 2010
Karnataka 113; V.         Narayanaswamy vs.         C.P.
Thirunavukkarasu (2000) 2 SCC 294: 2000 (1) SCR 292;         B
Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. Yaduvansh Singh and Ors (1998)
1 SCC 416: 1997 (5) Suppl. SCR 616; Raj Narain vs. Indira
Nehru Gandhi and Anr. (1972) 3 SCC 850: 1972 (3) SCR
841 - cited.

                     Case Law Reference:                     c
    AIR 2010 Karnataka 113      Cited         Para 9
    2000 (1) SCR 292            Cited         Para 11
    1997 (5) Suppl. SCR 616     Cited         Para 12        D
    1972 (3) SCR 841            Cited         Para 12
    1978 (3) SCR 446            Relied on     Para 14
    2000 (1) sec 481            Relied on     Para 14
                                                             E
    2000 (1) SCR 292            Relied on     Para 15

    2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 331     Relied on     Para 15

    1972 (3) SCR 742            Relied on     Para 17
                                                             F
    1986 Supp sec 315           Relied on     Para 17

    1969 (3) SCR 603            Relied on     Para 17

    (1987) Supp sec 93          Relied on     Para 17
                                                             G
    2009 (14) SCR 10            Relied on     Para 17

    1970 (3) SCR 662            Relied on     Para 18

    1964 SCR 573                Referred to   Para 25
                                                             H
    60       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A        1991 (2) SCR 752               Referred to    Para 25

         2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 682        Referred to    Para 25

         2010 (7) SCR 712               Referred to    Para 25

B       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10262 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 17.05.2010 of the High
    Court of Kerala in Election Petition No. 6 of 2009.

C       Krishnan Venugopal, V.K. Biju, Mannan, Gaurav, V.K.
    Verma for the Appellant.

        P.P. Rao, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Karan Kanwal,
    Apeksha Sharan, Utsav Sidhu, Abhimanya T., Vineeti
D   Sasidharan (for Lawyers'S Knit & Co.) for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The appellant herein, who
    contested the parliamentary elections held on 16th April, 2009
E   for the No.05 - Kozhikode Constituency of the Lok Sabha,
    challenged the election of the Respondent, Shri M.K.
    Raghavan, who was the returned candidate from the said
    constituency, by way of an Election Petition filed under Section
    81 read with Sections 100, 101 and 123 of the Representation
F   of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "1951
    Act". The Appellant contested the election as the official
    candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), hereinafter
    referred to as the "CPl(M)" led by the Left Democratic Front,
    hereinafter referred to as the "LDF", whereas the Respondent
G   No.1 was a candidate of the Indian National Congress and he
    contested the election as the candidate of the United
    Democratic Front, hereinafter referred to as the "UDF".

        2. The ground on which the election of the Respondent
    No.1 was challenged was that he had published false
H
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                 61
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

statements with regard to the Appellant and thereby committed A
corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the
1951 Act, which provides that the publication by a candidate
or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which
is false in relation to the personal character, conduct of any B
candidate, shall be deemed to be guilty of corrupt practice
within the meaning of Section 123 of the 1951 Act. The details
of the publications have been set out in paragraph 4 of the
impugned judgment and are as follows :

    ""A. "Corrupt practice" by the publication of allegedly false C
    statements in the form of -

     (1)   Annexure A ("Jagratha" ("Be careful") Newsletter
           bearing no date) allegedly published on 14-4-2009
           and distributed on 15-4-2009                      D

     (2)   Annexure H (Anonymous notice allegedly published
           on 14-4-2009 and 15-4-2009

     (3)   Annexure K (Report in the Mathrubhumi daily dated
           31-3-2009 of the speech of M.P. Veerendra Kumar         E

     (4)   Annexure L Hand Bill dated 11-4-2009 allegedly
           distributed on 14-4-2009

     (5)   Annexure M Wall poster allegedly published on 14-
                                                                   F
           4-2009 & 15-4-2009

     (6)   Annexure N Wall poster -do- -do-

                               AND
                                                                   G
    B. Fielding of other candidates having similarity in names."

    3. The highlights of the six publications have also been
shown in a tabular chart in paragraph 5 of the impugned
judgment and speak for themselves.
                                                                   H
    62           SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A        4. During the hearing of the petition, a question was raised
    with regard to the maintainability of the petition for want of a
    complete cause of action. After considering the submissions
    made on such ground, the High Court accepted the objection
    taken with regard to the maintainability of the Election Petition
s   and dismissed the same.

         5. Appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal,
    learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the learned Single
    Judge of the High Court had dismissed the Election Petition
    on two grounds :
c
          (i)     The Election Petition did not make out a complete
                  cause of action in so far as it did not contain
                  averments regarding the knowledge of the
                  Respondent No.1 about the falsity of the statements
D                 in relation to each of the publications; and

          (ii)    The false statements did not relate to the personal
                  character or candidature of the candidate within the
                  meaning of false statements in section 123(4) of the
                  Act.
E
       6. On behalf of the Respondent No.1, a preliminary
  objection was raised at the time of hearing that the Election
  Petition was incomplete and was liable to be dismissed as it
  did not contain the requisite affidavit in Form 25, as required
F under the proviso to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act read with
  Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Mr.
  Venugopal contended that the trial of an Election Petition was
  a quasi-criminal proceeding which entailed that the statutory
  requirements for an Election Petition had to be strictly
G construed. Of course, it is also necessary to protect the purity
  and sobriety of elections by ensuring that the candidates did
  not secure vote by undue influence, fraud, communal
  propaganda, bribery or other corrupt practices, as mentioned
  in the 1951 Act. Mr.Venugopal submitted that the importance
H of Section 123(4) of the above Act lies in the fact that voters
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                  63
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

should not be misled at the time of casting of their votes by a    A
vicious and defamatory campaign against candidates.
Mr.Venugopal submitted that the common refrain in all these
various decisions is that while the requirements of the election
laws are strictly followed, at the same time, the purity of the
election process had to be maintained at all costs.                B

     7. In addition to the above, Mr. Venugopal urged that the
argument which had not been advanced earlier and had been
orally raised for the first time before this Court, should not be
taken into consideration. The preliminary objection taken at the C
time of final hearing that the Election Petition was not supported
by an affidavit in Form 25, ought not to have been taken by the
Respondent No.1 either in his Written Statement or in the
Additional Written Statement filed in the High Court, or even in
the reply to the Election Appeal before this Court. Accordingly,
such an objection ought not to have been entertained and is D
liable to be ignored. Apart from the above, the learned Single
Judge had already taken the Appellant's affidavit on record on
15th December, 2009, wherein it was expressly noted that the
Respondent No.1 did not oppose the same being taken on
record. Mr. Venugopal submitted that once the affidavit had E
been taken on record, it was no longer open to the Respondent
No.1 to contend that the Election Petition was defective on the
ground of absence of affidavit in support thereof. Mr. Venugopal
submitted that the affidavit was in substantial compliance with
the requirements of Order VI Rule 15(4) read with Order XIX F
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred to
as "CPC" , and with Form 25 appended to the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961.

     8. Mr. Venugopal urged that an Election Petition could not G
be dismissed in limine on the ground of non-compliance with
the requirements of Section 83(1) thereof. It was also pointed
out that Section 86(1) of the Act requires dismissal of an
Election Petition only when it did not satisfy the requirements
of Sections 81, 92 and 117. Section 83 has not been included
                                                                H
    64       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   in the said provision. Mr. Venugopal submitted that this Court
    has repeatedly held that non-compliance of Section 83(1 ),
    which includes the requirement of verification under Section
    83(1 )(c), is a "curable" defect. In support of the said
    proposition, Mr. Venugopal referred to the decisions of this
8   Court in (i) Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar Vs. Roop
    Singh Rathore & Others [AIR 1964 SC 1545]; (ii) F.A. Sapa
    & Ors. Vs. Singora & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 375]; (iii) Sardar
    Harcharan Singh Brar Vs. Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors. [(2004)
    11 SCC 196] and K.K. Ramachandran Master Vs. M. V.
c   Sreyamakumar & Ors. [(2010) 7 SCC 428]. Mr. Venugopal
    submitted that the submission made on behalf of the
    Respondent No.1 that an affidavit in Form 25 is an integral part
    of an Election Petition has been considered and rejected by a
    Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in F.A. Sapa's
    case (supra). Learned counsel submitted that as a general
0
    proposition, this Court has held that the affidavit of an Election
    Petition is not an integral part of a petition.

          9. Mr. Venugopal next urged that it had been contended
    on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that the Election Petitioner/
E   Appellant had filed only one affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4)
    of the CPC and had not filed a separate and second affidavit
    in Form 25, as provided under Section 94A of the Conduct of
    Election Rules, 1961, which is also required to be filed under
    the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Act in support of an
F   allegation of a corrupt practice. Referring to the provisions of
    Section 83(1)(c) of the 1951 Act and Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC,
    Mr. Venugopal drew our attention to the Proviso to Section
    83( 1) which states that where the petitioner alleges a corrupt
    practice, the Election Petition shall "also be accompanied by
G   an affidavit in the prescribed form". Learned counsel submitted
    that two affidavits would be necessary only where an Election
    Petitioner wanted the 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
H   100(1 ). In such a case, two affidavits could possibly be
P.A. MOHAMMED RIVAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                     65
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
required, one under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC and another in            A
Form 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
self-same matter would render one of them otiose, which               B
proposition was found acceptable by the Karnataka High Court
in Prasanna Kumar Vs. G.M. Siddeshwar(AIR 2010 Karnataka
113]. Learned counsel urged that even non-mentioning and
wrong mentioning of a provision in an application is not a
ground to reject the application.                                     c
      10. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the object of the affidavit
under the Proviso to Section 83(1) is to fix responsibility with
a person making the allegations. Referring to the decision of
this Court in the case of F.A. Sapa (supra), Mr. Venugopal
pointed out that this Court had held that while there is sufficient   D
justification for the law to be harsh who indulged in such
practices, there is also the need to ensure that sueh allegations
are made with the sense of responsibility and concern and not
merely to vex the returned candidate.
                                                                      E
     11. Mr. Venugopal also urged that it has been held by this
Court in V. Narayanaswamy Vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu
((2000) 2 sec 294], that a petition levelling a charge of corrupt
practice is required by law to be supported by an affidavit and
the Election Petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of          F
information in respect of the commission of the corrupt practice.
He has to indicate that which of the allegations were true to his
knowledge and which to his belief on information received and
believed by him to be true. It was further observed that it was
not the form of the affidavit but the substance that matters. Mr.     G
Venugopal submitted that in the instant case, contrary to what
had been argued on behalf of the Respondent No.1, read as a
whole, the affidavit is in substantial compliance with the
requirements of Form 25 because it clearly specifies the
source of information, personal knowledge as well as the              H
    66        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   names of the person from whom information was received by
    the Appellant in respect of each of the paragraphs and
    schedules annexed to the Election Petition.

         12. On the question of finding of learned Single Judge that
    the Election Petitioner faileq to state that a complete cause of
8
    action was incorrect, since the information sought for was
    available in different parts of the Election Petition. Mr.
    Venugopal submitted that the law laid down by this Court is that
    pleadings should not be read in isolation but must be read as
    a whole and construed reasonably to determine whether they
C   did state a cause of action. Learned counsel submitted that it
    is now well-settled that material particulars, as opposed to
    material facts, need not be set out in the Election Petition and
    may be supplied at a later date. In this regard, learned counsel
    referred to the decision of this Court in Ashwani Kumar
D   Sharma Vs. Yaduvansh Singh & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 416], and
    certain other decisions which only served to multiply the
    decisions rendered on the said subject. Further submission was
    made that a "clumsy drafting" of an Election Petition should not
    result in its dismissal so long as the petition could make out a
E   charge of a head of corrupt practice when it is read as a whole
    and construed reasonably, as was observed in the case of Raj
    Narain Vs. Indira Nehru Gandhi & Anr. [(1972) 3 SCC 850].

        13. Mr. Venugopal submitted that in the present Election
F Appeal the requirements of a proper pleading have been fully
  met but the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there
  is just one single head of corrupt practice alleged under Section
  123(4) of the 1951 Act, relating to the publication of false
  statements about the personal character and candidature of the
G Appellant that were calculated to prejudice his election. Learned
  counsel submitted that the onus of proving a particular
  ingredient of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act was not very
  onerous, since the Appellant is only required to plead and prove
  that the statements made by the Respondent No.1 or his
H election agent or any person acting with the consent of either
  the Respondent No.1 or his agent are false. Once such
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                        67
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
statement is made on oath, the onus shifts to Respondent No.1            A
to demonstrate that he was not aware that the statements were
not false. Various decisions were cited in support of such
submission, to which reference may be made, if required, at
the later stage of the judgment. The learned counsel submitted
that the learned Single Judge had erred in concluding that the           B
allegations in various publications were not against the
personal character or candidature of the Appellant. It was
submitted that the statement published in the newspapers was
certainly sufficient to effect the private or personal character of
the candidate. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the order of the             c
Hon'ble High Court was required to be set aside with the
direction to expedite the appeal of the Election Petitioner and
to render its verdict at an early date.

     14. The submissions of Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No.1, were on                     D
expected lines. Mr. Rao reiterated the submissions which have
been made before the High Court that the Proviso to Section
83(1 )(c) of the 1951 Act, requires a separate affidavit to be filed
in Form 25 in support of each allegation of corrupt practice
made in the Election Petition. Mr. Rao submitted that in the             E
instant case, no such affidavit had been filed at all. He also
urged that it was settled law that the affidavit required to be filed,
by the Proviso to Section 83(1 )(c), is an integral part of the
Election Petition and in the absence thereof, such petition did
not disclose a cause of action and could not, therefore, be              F
regarded as an Election Petition, as contemplated under
Section 81 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Rao urged that the Election
Petition filed by the Appellant was, therefore, liable to be
dismissed under Section 86(1) of the 1951 Act read with Order
VII Rule 11 (a) CPC. Reference was made to the decision of               G
this Court in M. Kama/am Vs. Dr. V.A. Syed Mohammed
((1978) 2 SCC 659], in which this Court had held that if the
Election Petition did not comply with Section 81 of the 1951
Act, the High Court was required to dismiss the same under
Section 86(1) thereof. Learned counsel then referred to the              H
    68       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A decision of this Court rendered in R.P. Moidutty Vs. P. T. Kunju
  Mohammad & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 481], wherein also the
  provision of verification of an election petition fell for
  consideration and it was held that for non-compliance with the
  requirements of the Proviso to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act
B and Form 25 appended to the Rules, the election petition was
  liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It was also held that the.
  defect in verification was curable, but failure to cure the defects
  would be fatal. It was further held that the object of requiring·
  verification of an election petition is to clearly fix the
C responsibility for the averments and allegations in the petition
  on the person signing the verification and, at the same time,
  discouraging wild and irresponsible allegations unsupported by
  facts.

        15. In regard to his aforesaid submission that the Election
D Petition must disclose the cause of action and that in respect
  of allegations in relation to corrupt practice, the same had to
  be supported by affidavit disclosing source of information and
  stating that the allegations are true to the petitioner's
  knowledge and belief by him to be true, Mr. Rao also referred
E to two other decisions of this Court in : (i) V. Narayanaswamy
  Vs. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu [(2000) 2 SCC 294) and (ii)
  Ravinr:Jer Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh & Ors. [(2000) 8 SCC
  191).

F       16. 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 the CPC for the
  verification of pleadings. Referring to Order VI Rule 15 of the
  Code, Mr. Rao submitted that Sub-Rule (4) requires that the
G person verifying the pleading shall also furnish an affidavit in
  support of his pleadings, which was 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. Mr. Rao submitted that in
  the body of the Election Petition, there is no averment that the
H
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                    69
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.J

Respondent No.1 believed the statements made in the                  A
publications to be false and did not believe them to be true,
which, Mr. Rao submitted, was an essential ingredient of the
corrupt practice alleged under Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act.
Mr. Rao, however, admitted that in ground A of the Election
Petition there is a submission based on the advice of the            B
petitioner's counsel as per the verification made in the affidavit
filed under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC, which stands
incorporated in Section 83(1)(c) of the 1951 Act by reference.
According to Mr. Rao, there was no factual foundation laid for
the alleged corrupt practice and the Electiori Petition was,         c
therefore, liable to be dismissed.

      17. Learned senior counsel further contended that omission
to state a single material fact would lead to an incomplete
cause of action and an Election Petition without material facts
relating to a corrupt practice was not an Election Petition at all   D
and such omission would amount to non-compliance of the
mandate of Section 83(1 )(a) of the above Act, which rendered
the Election Petition ineffective. Beginning with the decision of
this Court in Hardwari Lal Vs. Kanwal Singh [(1972) 1 SCC
214], Mr. Rao also referred to various other decisions on the        E
same lines, including that of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi
[1986 Supp SCC 315], which had relied on the decision in
Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. Vs. George Fernandez & Ors.
[(1969) 3 SCC 238], Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal Vs. Rajiv
Gandhi [(1987) Supp SCC 93] and Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar              F
Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar[(2009) 9 SCC 310], to which
reference may be made, if required, at a later stage.

     18. Mr. Rao also urged that no corrupt practice could be
made out in terms of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act, if the          G
allegations did not relate to the personal character, conduct or
candidature of the concerned candidate and in support thereof,
he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Dev Kanta
Barooah Vs. Golok Chandra Baruah & Ors. ((1970) 1 SCC
392] and several other cases, to which reference, if required,
                                                                     H
may be made at a later stage.
    70        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2012] 4 S.C.R.


A       19. Attempting to distinguish the decisions cited by Mr.
  Venugopal, Mr. Rao submitted that all the said case laws were
  distinguishable on facts and had no application to the facts of
  the present case. In fact, Mr. Rao submitted that in F.A. Sapa's
  case (supra), it has been clearly indicated that the petition which
B did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 83 of
  the 1951 Act, could not be said to be an Election Petition in
  contemplation of Section 81 and attract dismissal under
  Section 86( 1) of the said Act.

        20. Mr. Rao submitted that the Appellant had not been able
C to refute the findings of fact recorded by the High Court, which
  had elaborately considered the decisions of this Court and
  correctly applied to the facts of the present case. Mr. Rao
  submitted that the present appeal has no merit and is liable to
  be dismissed with costs.
D
        21. Although, during the hearing of the Petition, a question
  was raised regarding the maintainability of the Petition for want
  of a complete cause of action and the same was accepted by
  the High Court which dismissed the Election Petition, the
E learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that the
  Election Petition did not make out a complete cause of action
  as it was not in conformity with Form 25 annexed to the Rules.

         22. This brings us to the next question that in order to
F   protect the purity of elections in the manner indicated, it was
    the duty of the State to ensure that the candidates in the
    elections did not secure votes either by way of an undue
    influence, fraud, communal propaganda, bribe or other types
    of corrupt practices, as specified in the 1951 Act.

G        23. The provisions of Chapter II of the 1951 Act relate to
    the presentation of election petitions to the High Court and
    Section 83 which forms part of Chapter II deals with the
    contents of the Election Petition to be filed. For the purpose of
    reference, Section 83 is extracted hereinbelow :-
H
P.A. MOHAMMED RIYAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                      71
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
    83. Contents of petition. (1) An election petition-                A

      (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           B
            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
                                                                       c
      (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
                                                                       0
            corrupt 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 shall also be        E
     signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner
     as the petition.

     As will be seen from the Section itself, the Election
Petitioner is required to set forth full particulars of any corrupt
                                                                       F
practice that he alleges and the names of the parties involved
therein and it further provides that the same is to be signed by
the Petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code
of Civil Procedure for the verification of proceedings. What is
important is the proviso which makes it clear that where the
Election Petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the Petition         G
shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form
in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the
particulars thereof and the schedule or annexures to the Petition
shall also be signed by the Petitioner and verified in the same
                                                                       H
    72        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   manner as the Petition. In other words, when corrupt practices
    are alleged in an Election Petition, the source of such
    allegations has to be disclosed and the same has to be
    supported, by an. affidavit in support thereof.

         24. In the present case, although allegations as to corrupt
8
   practices·aJleged to have been employed by the Respondent
   had been mentioned in the body <?f the Petition, the Petition
   itself had not b~en verified in the manner specified in Order VI
  ~~ule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-Section (4) of
   Section 123 of the 1951 Act defines "corrupt practice" and the
C publication of various statements against the Respondent which
   were not supported by affidavit, could not, therefore, have been
   taken into consideration by the High Court while considering
   the Election Petition. In the absence of proper verification, it has
   to be accepted that the Election Petition was incomplete as it
D did not contain a complete cause of action.

        25. 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, beginning witb the
E decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar's case
  (supra) and subsequently followed in F.A. Sapa's case (supra),
  Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar's case (supra) and K.K.
  Ramachandran Master's case (supra), referred to
  hereinbefore. In this context, we are unable to accept Mr.
F Venugopal's submission that despite the fact that the proviso
  to Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act provides that where corrupt
  practices are aHeged, the Election Petition shall also be
  accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form, it could not
  have been the intention of the legislature that two affidavits
G would be required, one under Order VI Rule 15(4) CPC and
  the other in Form 25. We--a.re also unable to accept Mr.
  Venugopal's submission that even in a case where the proviso
  to Section 83(1) was attracted, a single affidavit would be
  sufficient to satisfy the requirements of both the provisions. Mr.
  Venugopal's submission that, in any event, since the Election
H
P.A. MOHAMMED RIVAS v. M.K. RAGHAVAN & ORS.                      73
            [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Petition was based entirely on allegations of corrupt practices,       A
filing of two affidavits in respect of the self-same matter. would
render one of them redundant, is also not acceptable. As far
as the decision in F.A. Sapa's case (supra) is concerned, it
has been clearly indicated that the Petition, which did not strictly
comply with the requirements of Section 86(1) of the 1951 Act,         B
could not be said to be an Election 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 Lat's case (supra)       c
and the various other cases cited by Mr. P.P. Rao.

     26. In our view, the objections taken by Mr. P.P. R~o must
succeed, since in the absence of proper verification as
contemplated in Section 83, it cannot be said that the cause
of action was complete. The consequences of Section 86 of              D
the 1951 Act come into play immediately in view of Sub-
section (1) which relates to trial of Election Petitions and
provides that the High Court shall dismiss the Election Petition
which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or
Section 82 or Section 117 of the 1951 Act. Although, Section           E
83 has not been mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 86,
in the absence of proper verification, it must be held that the
provisions of Section .81 had also not been fulfilled and the
cause of action for the Election Petition remained incomplete.
The Petitioner had the opportunity of curing the defect, but it        F
chose not to do so·.

     27. In such circumstances, we have no other option, but
to dismiss the appeal.

    28. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but there will          G
be no order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                         Appeal dismissed.

                                                                       H