The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s peremptory dismissal of an election petition, clarifying that non-compliance with notarisation and attestation formalities in Form-25 does not automatically trigger dismissal under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, contested the election of the respondent, Kripanath Mallah, who was declared the successful candidate from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The High Court, invoking Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (the “RoP Act”), rejected the election petition filed by the appellant.
Key Facts
- The election was held in 2024 and the respondent was declared elected from Karimganj constituency.
- The appellant filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and procedural defects.
- Three specific contentions were raised before the High Court:
- The affidavit in Form-25, required under Section 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, showed no notarisation.
- Certain pages of the petition copy were attested with rubber stamps - “attested to be true copy of the petition” for pages 1-84 and “certified to be true copy” for pages 85-185 - which the appellant argued were not proper attestations under Section 81.
- Four pages (Nos. 11, 16, 21, 22) were alleged to be missing from the petition copy.
- The High Court found the attestation improper, did not discuss notarisation, and dismissed the missing-pages contention.
Procedural History
- 2024: General elections to the Lok Sabha were held; Kripanath Mallah elected from Karimganj.
- Date not specified: Election petition filed by the appellant under Section 86, RoP Act.
- High Court: Dismissed the petition peremptorily on the grounds mentioned above.
- 2025: Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025 filed before the Supreme Court of India.
- 24 August 2026: Supreme Court delivered its judgment.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant: Argued that the High Court’s finding on attestation conflicted with F.A. Sapa v. Singora and that Section 86 requires peremptory dismissal only when there is non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117. Contended that rubber-stamp attestations conveyed the same meaning as a petitioner’s signature and that lack of notarisation in Form-25 was a curable defect, not fatal.
- Respondent: Relied on Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and asserted that the absence of notarisation and improper attestation violated Section 81, rendering the petition non-maintainable under Section 86.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the High Court order, restoration of the election petition for merits consideration, and a declaration that the defects cited did not warrant peremptory dismissal.
The Legal Issue
Whether non-compliance with the notarisation requirement in Form-25 and the use of rubber-stamp attestations, without a petitioner’s signature, constitute a fatal defect that mandates peremptory dismissal of an election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on F.A. Sapa v. Singora to argue that Section 81(3) merely requires the petitioner’s signature on each copy, and that the form of attestation is not prescribed. It contended that Section 86 is triggered only when the petition fails to comply with Sections 81, 82 or 117, and that a missing notarisation in Form-25 is a curable irregularity, not a ground for dismissal.
For the Respondent
The respondent cited Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal to maintain that the absence of notarisation in Form-25 and improper rubber-stamp attestations breach the mandatory requirements of Section 81, rendering the petition non-maintainable. It argued that strict compliance is essential where allegations of corrupt practices are involved, and that any defect under Section 81 or 83 warrants dismissal under Section 86.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by interpreting Section 81(3) of the RoP Act, which obliges the election petitioner to attest each copy of the petition with his own signature, thereby certifying it as a true copy. The Court observed that the statute does not prescribe a specific form of attestation; the essential requirement is the petitioner’s personal signature taking responsibility for the copy.
"All that the provision requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the petition under his own signature, taking responsibility for the copy served to be a true copy of the original petition and no particular form of attestation is prescribed."
The Court noted that the rubber-stamp inscriptions - “attested to be true copy of the petition” and “certified to be true copy” - convey the same meaning as a handwritten attestation and therefore satisfy the statutory intent. Relying on F.A. Sapa v. Singora, the Court held that such stamps are permissible where the petitioner’s signature appears on the foot of each page.
Regarding Form-25, the Court examined the requirement under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, that the affidavit be signed by the petitioner and attested by a First-Class Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths. While acknowledging the absence of a notarisation stamp, the Court distinguished this defect from the fatal non-compliance contemplated in Dr Shipra (Smt). It observed that the original affidavit had been duly affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits, and the missing notarisation in the copy supplied to the returned candidate did not, by itself, mislead the respondent.
The Court further considered the doctrine of “substantial compliance” as discussed in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian. It reiterated that for allegations of corrupt practices, strict compliance with Sections 81 and 83 is required; however, the defect in Form-25 was not of the nature that would mislead the returned candidate or defeat the purpose of the statutory requirement.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the High Court’s peremptory dismissal was unwarranted. It reversed the finding on attestation, held that the rubber-stamp copies were valid, and directed that the petition be restored to the High Court for merits-based adjudication, subject to verification of any remaining attestation in Form-25.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated under Section 86, and restored the election petition to the High Court for consideration on its merits. No monetary or custodial relief was awarded; the operative direction was to verify the attestation on Form-25 and, if found satisfactory, proceed with the petition’s substantive issues.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Attestation Formalities Are Flexible
- Rubber-stamp attestations that clearly state “true copy” satisfy Section 81(3) provided the petitioner’s signature appears on each page.
- Courts will not impose a rigid form of attestation beyond the statutory requirement of the petitioner’s signature.
Lack of Notarisation in Form-25 Is Not Peremptory
- Absence of a notary’s seal in the copy served to the returned candidate does not, by itself, trigger dismissal under Section 86.
- The original affidavit’s affirmation before a Commissioner of Affidavits can cure the defect, subject to verification.
Strict Compliance Remains Essential for Corrupt-Practice Allegations
-
While substantive defects in Form-25 are not fatal, any omission that misleads the returned candidate or undermines the statutory purpose may still justify dismissal.
-
Practitioners must ensure that all copies of an election petition are clearly attested by the petitioner and that any supporting affidavits bear the required statutory endorsements.
-
Verify that Form-25 includes the prescribed notarisation or commissioner’s attestation before filing.
-
Use clear wording on rubber-stamp copies to avoid disputes over “proper” attestation.
-
Anticipate that courts will examine the intent of the statutory provisions rather than rigid formalism.
