Holding

Allegations of fraud in obtaining a false caste certificate do not amount to a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, and because the petitioner failed to cure the curable defects in verification and affidavit, the election petition could not be entertained.

Summary

The appellant Regu Mahesh filed an election petition challenging the election of Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev from the Saluru (ST) constituency on the ground that the respondent did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked proper verification, did not contain an affidavit in the prescribed Form 25, and that the allegations, though serious, were to be treated as corrupt practice. The Supreme Court held that obtaining a false caste certificate does not, by itself, constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, and that the affidavit requirement applies only when corrupt practice is alleged. It further observed that defects in verification or affidavit are curable, but the appellant failed to seek or obtain a cure, and therefore the High Court’s dismissal was justified. Accordingly, the appeals under Section 116A were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an allegation that a candidate obtained a false caste certificate and is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether an election petition that does not allege corrupt practice must be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed Form 25 under the Conduct of Election Rules.
Whether defects in verification of an election petition and in the accompanying affidavit are curable and whether the High Court should have allowed amendment.
Whether the election petition disclosed a valid cause of action and complied with the requirements of Sections 83, 86 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act.
Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the election petition on the grounds of improper verification and lack of a prescribed affidavit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Order VI Rule 15, s. Section 151
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 94-A
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(c), s. 100(1)(d)(i), s. 116, s. 116A, s. 123(3), s. 5, s. 81, s. 83, s. 86

Subjects

election petitioncorrupt practicescheduled tribe reservationverification defectaffidavit requirementRepresentation of the People Actcaste certificate fraudcurable defect

Judgment

REGU MAHESH ·@ REGU MAHESWAR RAO A
v.
RAJENDRA PRATAP BHANJ DEV AND ANR.

OCTOBER 30, 2003

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Sections 5, 81, 83, 86, JOO(l)(c) and (d) (i), 116 and 123-Election
petition challenging election to reserved constituency for Scheduled Tribe on C
the ground that elected candidate does not belong to ST-Whether allegation
amounts to corrupt practice-Held, allegation offraud, etc. in obtaining false
caste certificate does not per se constitute corrupt practice-Provision requiring
.J
affidavit in prescribed form not strictly applicable-Verification of election
petition not proper-Effect of-Held, defects in verification/affidavit curable- D
Defects in verification/affidavit pointed out-Dismissal of petition sought on
those grounds-No steps taken to cure defect-Incorrect facts stated in
" petition-Casual, negligent or cavalier approach ofpetitioner-On facts, held
judgment dismissing election petition does not call for inteiference---Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder VI Rules 15and1.6---Conduct of Election Rules,
1951-Rule 94-A. E
Appellant filed election petition under Sections 5 and IOO(l)(c) and
(d)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the election
of respondent no. 1 from Saluru (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency
reserved for members of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) on the ground that F
respondent no. 1 does not being to ST. Respondent no. 1 filed application
under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 86 of the 1951 Act for
rejecting election petition. High Court held that allegations made in the
election petition were grave and had to be treated at par with those
relating to corrupt practices and rejected election petition on the ground G
that affidavit accompanying election petition did not conform to Form
prescribed (Form No. 25) under Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election
> Rules, 1961; that election petition did not disclose valid cause of action as
material facts were not pleaded and contained averments which did not

7 H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
•
A fit into an election petition under Sections 5 and IOO(l)(d)(i) of the 1951
Act; and that verification of the pleadings was not proper as the same did
not conform to requirements laid down in Statute in regard to alleged
corrupt practice. Hence these appeals under Section 116A of the 1951 Act.

Appellant contended that insistence on affidavit envisaged in relation
B to corrupt practices is not correct as there was no allegation of corrupt
practice in the election petition; that election petition contained requisite
information and should not have been dismissed; that deficiencies in
verification and affidavit are of curable nature .and High Court should
have granted an opportunity to cure the defects; and that Section 86(1)
C of the 1951 Act did not apply to the facts of the case.

Respondent no. I contended that the election petition is extremely
vague; that petitioner did state that he was an elector; that election petition
did not contain proper verfication; that election petition did not indicate
cause of action; and that pleadings show allegations of corrupt practices
D in terms of Section 123(3) of the 1951 Act.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. In- terms of Section 83(b) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 wherever corrupt practice is alleged, full particulars of
E such practice alleged including a full statement as possible of names of
the parties alleged to have committed corrupt practice and the date and
place of commission of such practice has to be indicated. Though allegatio!I
of fraud etc. in obtaining false caste certificate have serious implications,
under the Act and particularly as the language of Section 123(3) specifies
and enumerates they do not per se constitute corrupt practice. The fact
F that a candidate obtains a certificate that he belonged to and is a member
of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe to contest as one belonging to such caste/
Tribe, essential and necessary for contesting as a candidate in a Reserved
Constituency, at any rate, cannot amount to an appeal to vote or refrain
from voting on ground of his caste/Tribe for the reason that what was
G obligated by the statute upon any one to be entitled to co.test in such a
reserved constituency cannot become condemnable as "corrupt practice".
To attract the vice of the said provisions as amounting to "corrupt
practice", independent appeal or canvassing for votes by the candidate
or his agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or
the election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of
H essential ingredient. Therefore, the provision requiring an affidavit in the
REGU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV 9
...
prescribed form (Form-94) may not strictly have any application. A
115-C-FI

2. As Section 83(c) of the 1951 Act itself indicates, the petition shall
be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in CPC
for verification of facts. Order VI Rule 15 deals with verification of
pleadings. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 prescribes that a person making a B
verification is required to specify by reference to the numbers of
paragraphs of the pleadings what he believes on his own knowledge; and
what he reveals upon information received and believed to be true. This
admittedly has not been done. It is settled position in law that defect in
verification of an affidavit is curable. 115-G; 16-B, C; 16-H] C
Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan and Ors., 1197211SCC826, State
of Bombay v. Purushotham, AIR (1952) SC 317, F.A. Sapa and Ors. v.
Singora and Ors., (19911 3 SCC 375, Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish,
i (20011 2 SCC 247 and H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda, 119991 2
sec 211, relied on. D
3. There is gulf of difference between a curable defect and a defect
continuing in the verification affidavit without any effort being made to
cure the defect. Not only defects in the verification/affidavit were pointed
out, but they were pressed into service seeking dismissal of the election
petition. The appellant stated in his reply that he was filing separate E
petition with permission for leave of the High Court for amending the
verification. But that was not done and the appellant continued to stick
to his stand that since corrupt practice was not alleged, there is no need
for making any amendment. 116-H; 17-G-HI

F.A. Sapa and Ors. v. Singora and Ors., 11991) 3 SCC 375 and R.P. F
Moidutty v. P.T. Kunju Mohammad and Anr., (200011 SCC 481, relied on.

4.1. An election petition has definite role in the law relating to
election of representatives of the people. An election petition is intended
to bring to focus any illegality attached to an election. It essentially and G
basically puts a question mark on the purity of election, casts doubt on
fairness thereof and seeks a declaration that mandate of people has been
obtained by questionable means. In a democracy the mandate has
sacrosanctity. It is to be respected and not lightly interfered with. When
it is contended that the purity of electoral process has been polluted,
weighty reasons must be shown and established. The onus on the election H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A petitioner is heavy as he has to substai!tiate his case by making out a clear
case for interference both in the ple3dings and in the trial Any casual,
negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter
involving great public importance cannot be countenanced or glossed over
too liberally as for fun. (19-A, C-El

B 4.2. The casual approach elf the appellant is not only visible from
the manner in which verification was done, but also from the fact that he
has mentioned two different districts to which he claims to be belonging.
The explanation that the same was given by mistake is too shallow when
considered in the background that he is stated to be a practicin& advocate.
C An advocate is supposed to know the importance of verification and the
desirability of making statement of correct facts in any petition and more
in case of an election petition. There is no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment dismissing the election petition. (19-B, C, El

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1833-1834 of
D 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.12.2002 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Application No. 1007/2000 in E.P. No. 14 of 1999.

B. Tarkam, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Prasanth P. and Mis. Lawyer's
E Knit & Co. for the Appellant.
J.V. Suruanarayana, Venkatarangadas Kanauri and Venkateswara Rao
Anumolu for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In these appeals under Section 116A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') challenge is
made to judgment and order dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court dismissing the election petition filed by the appellant, by accepting
prayers made by the respondent no. I in that regard. As the issues involved
G are pristinely legal, reference to the factual scenario briefly_ would suffice.

Election was held to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 11.9.1999.
The controversy in the present appeal relates to I0 Saluru (ST) Legislative
Assembly Constituency which is reserved for members of the Scheduled
Tribe. Respondent no.I filed his nomination claiming to be a member of
H Scheduled Tribe. His nomination was accepted and objections to his
•

REGU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV [PASA YAT, .I.] 11
candidature were rejected. Nominations of some candidates were also rejected. A
Respondent no. I after poll was declared elected in the election. The appellant
filed election petition under Sections 5 and 100{1 )( c) and (d)(i) of the Act
before the ~ligh Court on 19.I 1.1999. Primary stand taken in the election
petition appears to be that the claim of respondent no. I that he is a member
of Scheduled Tribe is not correct. Application was filed by present respondent B
no. I under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') and Section 86
of the Act praying for rejection of the election petition on the ground that
locus of the petitioner was not established, no cause of action was disclosed
and affidavit accompanying the petition was not in the prescribed form,
verification done and the affidavit filed did not conform to the requirements C
as laid down in the statute in regard to alleged corrupt practice and, therefore,
the same was misconceived and was liable to be rejected. Appellant filed his
response to the application.

On consideration of the rival stands the High Court came to hold that
>
though essentially there was no definite allegation of corrupt practices, yet D
allegations that somebody played fraud and has approached the electorate
claiming that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and get selected are similar to,
if not higher in gravity than allegations as to corrupt practices. The allegations
are to be treated at par with those relating to corrupt practices. That being so
it was held that the affidavit was not in the proper form and that election E
petition was not maintainable, as material facts were not pleaded, and merely
some unreliable and improper averments were made and that required rejection
of the petition. It was observed that the verification as required to be done
in terms of Order VI Rule 15 CPC were not complied with. The verification
was extremely vague and it was not stated as to what was the source of
information on which pleadings were based and which part really was on the F
basis of personal knowledge and information was also not indicated. It was
additionally noted that the petitioner was very casual in filing the election
petition; even the district to which the election petitioner claimed to belong
was described differently in the election petition. In conclusion it was noted
by the High Court as follows:
G
(a) The Election Petition does not disclose a valid cause of action;

(b) It contains several paragraphs which do not fit into an Election
Petition filed under Sections 5 and IOO(l)(d)(i) of the Act;

(c) There does not exist any valid verification of the pleadings; H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
,.
A (d) The affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the Election Petition
does not conform to the Form prescribed (Form No.25) under Rule
94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short 'the Rules').

In support of the appeals, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the insistence on affidavit in a particular form is not correct
B as there was no allegation of corrupt practice and, therefore, an affidavit
envisaged in relations to such allegations is not required. Since the respondent
no. I committed fraud on the constituency and the constituents by claiming to
be member of Schedule Tribe, and requisite information was given the election
petition should not have been dismissed. Finally the deficiencies, if any, in
C the verification and affidavit are of curable nature and the High Court should
have granted an opportunity to cure the defects.

The petition was not one which could be rejected in terms of Section
86(1) of the Act. The said provision empowers the High Court to dismiss the
election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or
D Section 82 or Section 117 of the Act. None of these provisions have application
to the facts of the case.

In response, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. I submitted
that the election petition is extremely vague, the appellant nowhere stated
that he was an elector, it was not specifically indicated in the verification as
E to which part of the petition was based on personal knowledge and which
part also based on information and the source of information if any. The
petition which does not contain a proper verification is not an election petition
in terms of Section 83( I) of the Act. There was no cause of action indicated.
The pleadings clearly show allegations of corrupt practices in terms of Section
F 123 (3). Particular reference is made to paragraph 8 of the petition which
according to him is definite allegation of appealing to the electorate on the
ground of caste.

Respective stands need careful consideration. Before we deal with the
basic issues, it would be appropriate to quote few provisions from the Act:
G "Section 8/- Presentation ofPetitions- (I) An election petition calling
in question any election may be presented on one or more of the
grounds specified in sub-section(!) of Section 100 and Section IOI
to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector
within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election
H of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned
REGU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV [PASAYAT, J.) 13
candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the A
later of those two dates.

Explanation - In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was
entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates,
whether he has voted at such election or not.
B
(2) xx x xx

(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies
thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every
such copy shall be attested by the petitioner under his own signature
to be a true copy of the petition. C
Section 83-Contents of petition - (I) 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 that the D
petitioner alleged 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

(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 E
verification of pleadings;

Provided that where the 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 corrupt practice and the
particulars thereof. F
(2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by
the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.

Section 86 - Trial of election petitions - (I) The High Court shall
dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions G
of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.

Explanation - An order of the High Court dismissing an election
petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made
under clause (a) of Section 98.
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (2) As soon as may be after an election petition has been presented
to the High Cnurt, it shall be referred to the Judge or one of the
Judges who has or have been assigned by the Chief Justice for the
trial of election petitions under sub-section (2) of Section 80A.

(3) Where more election petitions than one are presented to the High
B Court in respect of the same election, all of them shall be referred for
trial to the same Judge who may, in his discretion, try \hem separately
or in one or more groups.

(4) Any candidate not already a respondent shall, upon application
made by him to the High Court within fourteen days from the date
c of commencement of the trial and subject to any order as to security
for costs which may be made by the High Court, be entitled to be
joined as a respondent.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 97,
the trial of a petition shall be deemed to commence on the date fixed
D for the respondents to appear before the High Court and answer the
claim or claims made in the petition.

(5) The High Court may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise
as it may deem fit, allow the particulars of any corrupt practice alleged
in the petition to be amended or amplified in such manner as may in
E its opinion be necessary for ensuring a fair and effective trial of the
petition, but shall not allow any amendment of the petition which will
have the effect of introducing particulars of a corrupt practice not
previously alleged in the petition.

(6) The trial of an election petition shall, so far as is practicable
F consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be
continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the High Court
finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be
necessary for reasons to be recorded.

G (7) Every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible
and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the
date on which the election petition is presented to the High Court for trial.

Section 123 (3) - The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to
H vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his
REGU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV (PASA YAT, J.) 15
., religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal A
to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbriis,
such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance
of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially
affecting the election of any candida!1:: ·•·

Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate B
shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the
purposes of this clause."

What is "corrupt practice" is set out in Section 123. In terms of Section
83(b) wherever corrupt practice is alleged, full particulars of such practice
alleged including a full statement as possible of names of the parties alleged c
to have committed corrupt practice and the. date and place of commission of
~.uch practice has to be indicated. Though allegation of fraud etc. in obtaining
false caste certificate have serious implications, under the Act and particularly
as the language of Section 123(3) specifies and enumerates they do not per
Ir ' se constitute corrupt practice. The fact that a candidate obtains a certificate
D
that he belonged to and is a member of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe to contest
as one belonging to such caste/Tribe, essential and necessary for contesting
as a candidate in a Reserved Constituency, at any rate, cannot amount to an
appeal to vote or refrain from voting on ground of his caste/Tribe for the
reason that what was obligated by the statute upon any one to be entitled to
, contest in such a· reserved constituency cannot become condemnable as E
"corrupt practice". To attract the vice of the said provisions as amounting to
J' "corrupt practice", independent appeal or canvassing for votes by the candidate
or his agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or the
election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that
candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate is an
essential ingredient Therefore, the provision requiring an 'affidavit in the
F
prescribed form (Form-94) may not strictly have any application. But that is
not the omega. As Section 83(c) itself indicates, the petition shall be signed
by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in CPC for verification
of facts. Order VI Rule 15 deals with verification of pleadings and reads as
follows: G
"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 to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with
the facts of the case. H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered
paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge
and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be
true.

(3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall
B state the date on which and the place at which it was signed."

As sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 prescribes that a person making a verification
is required to specify by reference to the numbers of paragraphs of the
pleadings what he believes on his own knowledge, and what he reveals upon
information received and believed to be true. This admittedly has not been
C done in the present case.

In F.A. Sapa and Ors. v. Singora and Ors., (1991) 3 SCC 375 a three-
Judge Bench of this Court specifically dealt with an issue concerning defects
in the verification of an election petition as well as of defects in the affidavit
D accompanying an election petition wherein allegations of corrupt practice are
made. After considering the provisions of Sections 83 and 86 of the Act, as
also the requirements of Form 25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Rules and
relevant provisions of the CPC, it was held: (SCC pp.403-04, para 28)

"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
E of the Code and the resume of the case-law discussed above it clearly
emerges (i) a defect in the 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
F are based on information 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 ..."

G This judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in H.D.
Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda, [ 1999) 2 SCC 217 and by a three-Judge
Bench in Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish, [2001 2 SCC 247

It is, therefore, a settled position in law that defect in verification or an
affidavit is curable. But further question is what happens when the defect is
H not cured. There is gulf of difference between a curable defect and a defect
RECU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV [PASA YAT, J.] 17
continuing in the verification affidavit without any effort being made to cure A
the defect.

In F.A. Sapa 's case (supra) it was held that even though ordinarily a
defective verification can be cured and the failure to disclose the grounds or
sources of information may not be fatal, failure to place them on record with
promptitude may lead the Court in a given case to doubt the veracity of the B
evidence ultimately tendered.
f
In R.P. Moidutty v. P. T. Kunju Mohammad and Anr., [2000] 1 SCC
481) it was, inter alia, held as follows:

"All the averments made in paras 1 to 17 of the petition have C
been stated to be true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner and
in the next breath the very same averments have been stated to be
based on the information of the petitioner and believed by him to be
true. The source of information is not disclosed. As observed by this
·. ,. Court in Singora 's case (supra) the object of requiring verification of D
an election petition is to clearly fix the 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. However, the defect of verification is not fatal
to the petition, it can be cured (See Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram
Kumarv. Roop Singh Rathore, AIR (1964) SC 1545 andA.S. Subbaraj E
v. M Muthiah, (5 ELR 21 ). In the present case the defect in verification
was pointed out by raising a plea in that regard in the written
statement. The objection was pressed and pursued by arguing the
same before the Court. However, the petitioner persisted in pursuing
the petition without proper verification which the petitioner should F
not have been permitted to do. In our opinion, unless the defect in
verification was rectified, the petition could not have been tried. "

(Underlined for emphasis)

The case at hand has great similarity with the decision in R.P. Moidutty 's
case (supra). Not only defects in the verification/affidavit were pointed out, G
but they were pressed into service seeking dismissal of the election petition.
The appellant stated in his reply that he .was filing separate petition with
permission for leave of the High Court for amending the verification. But
that was not done and the appellant continued to stick to his stand that since
corrupt practice was not alleged, there is no need for making any amendment. H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The importance of verification has been noted by this Court in several
decisions. In Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan and Ors., [1972] I SCC
826) it was noted as under:

"The importance of setting out the source of information in affidavits
came up for consideration before this Court from time to time. One
B of the earliest decisions is State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, .
AIR (1952) SC 317 where this Court endorsed the decision of the
Calcutta High Court in Padmadbati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar, (!LR) 37
Cal. 259) anli held that the sources of information should be clearly
disclosed. Again in BariunJ Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. Company Law
Board and Ors., AIR (1967) SC 295 this Court deprecated slip shod
c verifications in an affidavit and re-iterated the ruling of this Court in
Bombay's case (supra) that verification should invariably be modelled
on the lines of Order 19, Rule 3 of the Code 'Whether the Code
applies in terms or not'. Again in A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India
and Anr., [ 1969] 3 SCC 864, this Court said that the importance of
D verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations '
artd also to make the deponent responsible for allegations.

The real importance of setting out the sources of information at
the time of the presentation of the petition is to give the other side
notice of the contemporaneous evidence on wh,ich the election petition
E is based. That will give an opportunity to the other side to test the
genuineness and veracity of the source of information. The other
point of view is that the election petition will not be able to make any
departure from the sources or grounds, if there is any embellishment
of the case it will be discovered".
F The Constitution Bench in St~te ofBombay v. Purushotham, AIR (1952)
SC 317 noted as follows:

"The verification however states that everything was true to the
best of his information and belief. We point this out as slipshod
verifications of this type might well in a given case lead to a rejection
G of the affidavit. Verification should invariably be modelled on the
lines of Order 19, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, whether the
Code applies in terms or not. And when the matter deposed to is not
based on personal knowledge the source of information should be
clearly disclosed.· We draw attention to the remarks of Jenkins C.J.
H and Woodroffe, J, in Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar, (37 Cal.
REGU MAHESH v. R.P.B. DEV [PASA YAT, J.] 19
259) and endorse the learned Judges' observations". A
An election petition has definite role in the law relating to election of
representatives of the people.

The casual approach of the appellant is not only visible from the
manner in which verification was done, but also from the fact that he has B
mentioned two different districts to which he claims to be belonging. The
• explanation that the same was given by mistake is too shallow when considered
in the background that he is stated to be a practicing advocate. An advocate
is supposed to know the importance of verification and the desirability of
making statement of correct facts in any petition and more in case of an
election petition. An election petition is intended to bring to focus any illegality C
attached to an election. It essentially and basically puts a question mark on
the purity of election, casts doubt on fairness thereof and seeks a declaration
that mandate of people has been obtained by questionable means. In a
democracy the mandate has sacrosanctity. It is to be respected and not lightly
interfered with. When it is contended that the purity of electoral process has · D
been polluted, weighty reasons must be shown and established. The onus on
the election petitioner is heavy as he has to substantiate his case by making
out a clear case for interference both in the pleadings and in the trial. Any
casual, negligent or cavalier approach in such serious and sensitive matter
involving great public importance cannot be countenanced or glossed over
too liberally as for fun. E
J Above being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment dismissing the election petition; though we have not
approved or affirmed some of the reasons for conclusion arrived at by the
High Court, as detailed above. The appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. F
A.K.T. Appeal dismissed.