In Brief
A candidate challenging a parliamentary election victory sought to overturn the result based on allegations that the elected candidate failed to disclose assets in nomination papers (a corrupt practice). The High Court dismissed the election petition at the outset because it lacked the required Form 25 affidavit supporting the corrupt practice allegations, as mandated by election rules. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that while Form 25 affidavit compliance is normally required, the absence is a curable defect—not grounds for immediate dismissal. Since the petition already contained a supporting affidavit (albeit not in the prescribed form), the candidate should be allowed to file the proper Form 25 affidavit. Technical defects should not bar substantive election challenges from trial.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.