In Brief
In this election law case, a returned candidate challenged the High Court's rejection of his application to dismiss an election petition alleging corrupt practice. The returned candidate argued the petition failed because it lacked the mandatory separate Form-25 affidavit prescribed by Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court held that while an affidavit supporting corrupt practice allegations must accompany such petitions, strict compliance with the prescribed form is not mandatory. Substantial compliance suffices, and any defect is curable. Since the petition contained a verification and affidavit wherein the petitioner swore the allegations were true, the statutory requirements were substantially met. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.