[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

(An Application Under Sections 8 vs Dipali Das ... Opposite Party on 6 February, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    I.A. No.111 of 2024
                  (ELPET No.07 of 2024)

(An application under Sections 81,82,83,86 and 87 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Order VI Rule
16, Order-VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C.,
1908)

   Tankadhar Tripathy ...                        Petitioner
                                              (Respondent in the
                                              Election Petition)

                               -versus-

  Dipali Das                       ...         Opposite Party
                                             (Petitioner in
                                              the Election Petition)


 Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

  For Petitioner                        : Mr.G.K.Agarwal,
                                          Sr. Advocate
                                          Ms. S.Srivastava,
                                          Advocate.

                                -versus-

   For Opposite Party
                                          : Mr. Bidyadhar Mishra
                                              Sr.Advocate.
                                              Mr. T.K.Biswal,
                                              Advocate
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             CORAM:
             JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                            ORDER

06.02.2026.

Sashikanta Mishra,J. This application was filed by the sole

Respondent of the Election Petition under Order VI

Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 read with Order VII Rule 14

of the C.P.C. and Sections 81, 82, 83, 86 and 87 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act) with a

prayer to strike out the pleadings under Paragraphs-5

to 14 and 14-A to 14-L of the Election Petition and to

reject/dismiss the Election Petition in its entirety at

the very threshold under Section 86 of the Act. Several

grounds justifying the reliefs claimed were cited. The

Interlocutory Application was heard extensively and by

order dated 21.3.2025, this Court, finding no merit

therein, dismissed the same. However, the Election

Petitioner was granted three weeks' time to file an

affidavit in Form 25.

2. Being aggrieved, the sole Respondent carried the

matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.11017/2025 (arising out of SLP (C)

No.12491/2025). By judgment passed on 22.8.2025,

the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh

consideration by this Court on certain issues specified

in the order. For immediate reference, the direction of

the Supreme Court as enumerated in Paragraph-24 of

the judgment is reproduced below;

"24. In light of the above discussion, the matter stands remitted to the High Court with the following directions and conclusions:

a. The High Court is requested to identify and enumerate the defects in the Form 25 affidavit and assess whether such defects, if any, were curable. To this end, the High Court may consider the following as preliminary issues:

i. Whether the affidavit in the instant case, alleging 'corrupt practices,' is defective and does not satisfy the requirement under Form 25?

ii. If defective, does it substantially satisfy the requirements of Form 25, and can it be so construed in accordance with the decisions of this Court cited in paragraphs 15 to 17 above?

iii. If the defect in the Form 25 affidavit could be cured, would it be mandatory to file a supplementary affidavit within the period of limitation? iv. Whether the High Court-cum-Election Tribunal possesses the power to condone the delay and permit the Election Petitioner to file the affidavit, in the prescribed format of Form 25, beyond the period of limitation?

b. Additionally, we allow the proposals submitted by the parties and request the High Court to strike out the portions of the pleadings that they have mutually agreed to expunge from the record.

c. Upon striking out of such pleadings, the High Court shall afford the parties reasonable time to carry out the consequential amendments to the Election Petition and the Written Statement(s). Thereafter, the High Court may proceed to frame issues on the merits of the matter."

3. Before proceeding to determine the above issues, it

would be apt to refer to certain other observations of

the Supreme Court as contained in Paragraph-23 of

the Judgment, which is reproduced below;

"23. In view of these apparent deficiencies in the Impugned Order, namely, (i) to specify the extent of compliance with the High Court Rules; (ii) to enumerate the defects necessitating rectification; and

(iii) to examine whether the principles of substantial compliance have been followed or not, we deem it appropriate to remit the case to the High Court with a request to answer these questions and re-determine whether these were curable defects which could be permitted to be rectified. We are inclined to remand the matter also for the reason that the High Court has correctly identified some grounds, other than 'corrupt practices,' on which the Election Petition deserves further consideration on merits."

4. It is evident that Point No. (iii) mentioned in the

said paragraph is to be determined along with the

above noted issues. In so far as Point Nos. (i) and (ii)

are concerned, this Court is required to specify the

extent of compliance with the High Court Rules and to

enumerate the defects necessitating rectification.

5. For convenience, the parties are referred to as

per their original status in the Election Petition.

6. Heard Mr. G.K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel

with Ms. S.Srivastava for the sole

Respondent/Petitioner in the I.A. and Mr. Bidyadhar

Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Mr. T.K.Biswal,

learned counsel for the Election Petitioner/Opp.Party

in the I.A.

7. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel, would

argue that Chapter- XXXIII of the Orissa High Court

Rules, 1948 governs the procedure for filing of Election

Petition and the matters incidental thereto. Rule 7

provides that if any defect is noticed by the Stamp

Reporter, the same shall be referred to the Election

Judge. Rule 21 lays down that the rules regarding

applications and affidavits in Chapter-VI Part-II of

Orissa High Court Rules Vol.1 shall apply mutatis

mutandis to all applications under the chapter.

Referring to the Rules as above, Mr. Agarwal would

argue that the affidavit accompanying the Election

Petition has to be strictly in terms of Order VI Rule 16

of C.P.C. Referring to the facts of the present case, Mr.

Agarwal argues that though the allegations made in

the Election Petition amount to corrupt practice, the

Stamp Reporter did not point out the defect that the

Election Petition was not accompanied by an affidavit

in Form 25 as mandated by the proviso to sub-section

(2) of Section 83 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of

Election Rules, 1961.

8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior counsel,

would argue that Rules 7 and 21 of Chapter XXXIII

applies to applications but not the Election Petition

itself. On facts, Mr. Mishra would submit that the

Election Petitioner had though made several

allegations yet, she had not specified the same as

corrupt practice. As such, there was no occasion for

the Stamp Reporter to point out any defect relating to

non-filing of affidavit in Form-25. The question

whether the allegation amounts to corrupt practice or

not can only be determined by the Court and not the

Registry. In the instant case, after going through the

pleadings this Court held that certain allegations

amount to corrupt practice. Under such

circumstances, the Petitioner was asked to file Form

25.

9. It would be apt to refer to the relevant provisions

of the Orissa High Court Rules governing the field as

provided under Chapter XXXIII. The Chapter is titled

'Rules to regulate proceedings under Section 80-A of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of

1951)'. Rule 7 reads as under:

"Every election petition shall, on presentation, be examined by the Stamp Reporter, who shall certify thereon whether the petition is in conformity with the requirements of law and the rules applicable to the same and the petition with the defects or omissions if any, as reported by the Stamp Reporter, shall be referred to the Judge who has been assigned by the Chief Justice for the trial of the Election Petition for orders under section 86 of the Act."

10. It is seen that in the instant case, the Election

Petition was presented on 12.7.2024. The Registrar

(Judicial) after examining the petition endorsed the

following on the body of the Election Petition (in the

cause title page):

"This election petition is presented today i.e on 12.07.2024 at about 2.30 p.m before the Registry in presence of election petitioner namely Dipali Das. Her Counsels namely Taranikanta Biswal and associates are present. Challan fee Rs.2000/- is deposited. Court fee Rs 12/- is paid. Requisites in both ways are filed. Process fee is Rs5/- and postage stamp of Rs 220/- is paid and is affixed on the postal envelope respectively."

11. Evidently, the Registry did not find any defect so

as to be placed before the Court for passing

appropriate orders. As per Rule 7, which is reproduced

above, had any defects been noted, the same would

have been referred to the Court. All other Rules

governing the procedure in seriatim were followed

which need not be referred to here. As regards the

affidavit, Rule 21 being relevant is quoted below:

"21. Subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, the provisions of Code Civil Procedure, so far as may be applicable, will apply to the proceedings arising under the Act. The rules regarding applications and affidavits in Chapter IV Part II of the Orissa High Court Rules Vol. I shall apply mutatis mutandis to the applications under this Chapter."

12. Part II lays down the procedure and practice of

which Chapter VI (wrongly mentioned in Rule 21 as

Chapter IV) lays down general rules regarding

applications and affidavits. Needless to mention, the

Election Petition is accompanied by both verification as

well as affidavit. The Registry did not point out any

defect in the said affidavit for this Court to consider.

Despite arguing to the contrary, Mr. Agarwal has not

been able to demonstrate as to how the affidavit

appended to the Election Petition is defective being

contrary to the above referred Rules. This Court

therefore, is of the considered view that the provisions

of the Orissa High Court Rules were scrupulously

adhered to and that no defects were noticed requiring

rectification.

13. Coming to the issues framed by the Supreme

Court for determination, reference to certain admitted

facts would be in order at first. The Petitioner, as

already stated, has not designated the allegations

contained in Paragraph-14-A to 14-E as corrupt

practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the R.P.

Act. Further, admittedly no affidavit in Form 25 was

filed along with the election petition.

Issue No. (i):-

14. In this context Mr. Agarwal would argue that in

the absence of affidavit in Form 25, the Election

Petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold as

the Proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is mandatory in nature.

In short, Mr. Agarwal would argue that the defect of

non-filing of affidavit in Form 25 is an incurable one.

15. Mr. Mishra, on the other hand, would argue that

there being no affidavit in Form 25 filed along with

Election Petition, issue No.i, i.e. whether the affidavit is

defective or not is redundant.

16. As already mentioned, the Election Petition

contains an affidavit, wherein reference has been made

to the pleadings under Paragraphs 14-A to 14-E, which

are allegations of corrupt practice. Hence, as per the

proviso to sub-section (1) of section 83, a separate

affidavit in Form-25 is necessary. The affidavit on

record does not purport to be one under Form 25 nor

is it in the format of Form-25. Therefore, it can be

treated as a defective affidavit only to the extent of

non-adherence to the format prescribed under Rule

94A of the Conduct of Election Rules read with proviso

to Sec-83 (1)(c). What consequences are to follow in

such event shall be discussed hereafter.

17. Issue no. (i) is answered accordingly.

Issue no. (ii)

18. Coming to this issue, it is argued by Mr.

Agarwal, referring to the format of affidavit in Form 25

that the affidavit appended to the Election Petition

does not in the least satisfy the said requirements. He

submits that it is necessary to specify which alleged

corrupt practices are based on the Petitioner's own

knowledge and which are based on information

received by the Petitioner. The affidavit specifies

neither.

Elaborating his argument, Mr. Agarwal would

submit that it has been generally stated in the affidavit

that the same was based on information received from

polling agents and local advocates yet, the same is

vague as the names of the polling agents or local

advocates have not been specified. Furthermore, the

source of information of Rama Chandra Pradhan,

whose name is mentioned in the affidavit, has also not

been stated. On such basis, Mr. Agarwal would argue

that the affidavit does not at all satisfy the requirement

of Form 25. Since the Election Petitioner has not

segregated as to which of the allegations are based on

her knowledge and which are based on information

received by her, it cannot be said that there was

substantial compliance of the requirement of Form 25.

19. Per contra, Mr. Mishra would argue that the

requirement of Form 25 is to specify which of the facts

alleged relating to corrupt practice are true to the

knowledge of the deponent and which are true as per

information received by him. In the instant case, the

allegations made under Paragraphs-14(A) to 14(B)

amounts to corrupt practice as decided by this Court

earlier. In paragraph-7 of the affidavit accompanying

the Election Petition, the petitioner has clearly stated

that the said facts have been pleaded basing on her

own information, her polling agents, her counting

agents and her authorized agent-Mr. Rama Chandra

Prahdan and local advocates. Though not stated

exactly in the sequence mentioned in the format of

Form 25, yet the same substantially satisfies the

requirement.

20. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite

to reproduce Form 25:

"FORM 25 (See rule 94A) Affidavit I, ........................,the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri/Shrimati.............(respondent No............in the

said petition) make solemn affirmation/oath and say-

          (a)        that          the      statements         made      in
          paragraphs.......................of       the      accompanying

election petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of*...................and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs.................of the same petition and in paragraphs.....................of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge;

(b) that the statements made in paragraphs....................of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of*.........................and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs..........................of the said petition and in paragraphs.......................................of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information;

(c)

(d) etc. Signature of deponent.

Solemnly affirmed/sworn by Shri/Shrimati.............at.....this.............day of...................20.........

Before me, Magistrate of the first class/Notary/ Commissioner of Oaths * Here specify the name of the corrupt practice."

21. Thus, the requirement appears to be three-fold:

  (i)     To specify the corrupt practices,

  (ii)    To specify which of the corrupt practices are true

to the knowledge of the Petitioner, and

(iii) which are true to her information.

22. In order to test whether the affidavit

accompanying the Election Petition is in line with the

above requirement of Form 25 or not, it would be

profitable to reproduce the affidavit accompanying the

Election Petition:

"AFFIDAVIT IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Name - Miss Dipali Das, aged about 27 years, resident of MLA House, Sarbahal, near Jagannath Mandir, At/Po/Ps/District- Jharsuguda, Odisha, PIN - 768201.

2. Father's Name - Late Naba Kisore Das

3. Occupation - Social worker and Politics

4. Number of proceedings pending in the High Court or would be instituted - None

5. Statement of facts - As stated in this Election Petition

6. That the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

DECLARATION I, Miss Dipali Das, aged about 27 years, daughter of Late Naba Kisore Das, resident of MLA House, Sarbahal, near Jagannath Mandir, At/Po/Ps/District- Jharsuguda, Odisha, PIN - 768201, do hereby solemnly affirm and verify as follows:

1. That I am the Election Petitioner in this Election petition.

2. That the facts pleaded in Paragraphs 1 to 4, Paragraph - 6, Paragraphs 10, 11, 13 and 15 are personally known to me and I solemnly affirm and verify that the facts pleaded in the aforesaid paragraphs are true and correct to my personal knowledge.

3. That the facts pleaded in Paragraph - 5 of the Election Petition became known to me being informed by my authorized agent namely Sri Ram Chandra Pradhan, which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify that the pleadings in Paragraph - 5 are true and correct.

4. That the facts pleaded in Paragraph - 7 and Paragraph - 8 of the Election Petition became

known to me being informed by my respective polling agents, which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify that the pleadings in Paragraph - 7 and Paragraph

- 8 are true and correct.

5. That the facts pleaded in Paragraph - 9 of the Election Petition became known to me being informed by my respective counting agents, which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify that the pleadings in Paragraph - 9 are true and correct.

6. That the reliefs sought for in Paragraph - 12 as well as Prayer portion of the Election Petition have been pleaded and formulated as per legal advice of my Advocate which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify the same to be true and correct.

7. That the concise statement of material facts pleaded in Paragraphs "14-A to 14-L of the Election Petition have been pleaded and formulated by my Advocate basing on the information received from me, my polling agents, my counting agents, my authorized agent Sri Ram Chandra Pradhan and my local Advocates, which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify the same to be true and correct.

8. That the facts pleaded under Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the Election Petition have been pleaded and formulated by my Advocate as per provisions of law which I believe to be true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and verify the same to be true and correct.

XX XX XX [Emphasis added]"

23. Be it noted that the Election Petition also

contains a verification. Turning briefly to the pleadings,

which this Court has held amount to allegations of

corrupt practice, it is seen that Paragraph-14-A

contains reference to certain criminal cases said to be

registered against the Respondent and so also

Paragraph-14-B. Paragraph-14-C refers to alleged non-

disclosure of deposits in different forms by the

Respondents. Paragraph-14-D refers to alleged non-

disclosure of details of immovable properties.

Paragraph-14-E refers to the non-disclosure of

financial liabilities. Despite pleading as above, the

Election Petitioner has nowhere specified the same as

corrupt practice. This Court, in its earlier order held

that non-disclosure of criminal cases by the

Respondent, prima facie, amounts to corrupt practices.

The Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Lok

Prahari v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 699 has held

that non-disclosure of assets and liabilities also

amounts to corrupt practice. Therefore, the allegations

made in Paragraph-14(A) to 14(E) of the Election

Petition relate to corrupt practice and therefore, the

Petitioner was called upon to file affidavit in Form 25.

Such liberty was granted by this Court by holding that

the affidavit already on record is in substantial

compliance of the requirement of Form 25. This was

disapproved by the Supreme Court as the necessary

fact-based analysis to justify such finding had not

been made.

24. Thus, this Court would first proceed to

determine whether the affidavit already on record

substantially complies with the requirement of Form-

25 or not. As already seen, the requirement is to

specify the corrupt practice and to further specify

which of the allegations are true to the own knowledge

of the Petitioner and which, true to information.

Paragraph-7 of the affidavit filed along with Election

Petition and reproduced herein before shows that

though not specifying each of the corrupt practices as

such, the Petitioner has referred to Paragraphs-14-A to

14-L. The allegations of corrupt practice, as already

stated, are contained in Paragraphs-14-A to 14-E.

Therefore, Paragraph-7 of the affidavit can be said to

relate to the said paragraphs also. It has been

generally stated that the said allegations have been

pleaded and formulated by her Advocate basing on

'information received from me, by Polling Agents, my

Counting Agents, my authorized Agent Mr. Ram Ch.

Pradhan and my local Advocates, which I believe to be

true and correct and accordingly I solemnly affirm and

verify the same to be true and correct".

25. As pointed out by Mr. Agarwal, there is in fact

no segregation as to which of the allegations are based

on the personal knowledge of the Petitioner and which

are based on information received by her. Nevertheless,

this cannot be equated with a complete absence of

affidavit in which case, it would amount to a defect of

substance and not of form.

In the humble view of this Court, the

Petitioner having generally stated, albeit without

specification, that the allegations made in the relevant

paragraphs are true to her own knowledge and true to

her information received from different sources, it can

be safely held that the affidavit substantially complies

with the requirement of Form 25. To state at the cost

of repetition, the defect in the affidavit is one of form

and not of substance and therefore, can be cured. The

Petitioner can always be asked to furnish further

particulars of what is already stated but not to state

something not stated at all.

26. This Court is fortified in its view, as above by the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M.

Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776,

A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna, (2022) 3 SCC 269, and

Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh,

(2023) 17 SCC 500. In G.M. Siddeshwar (supra)

referring to the earlier three Judge Bench judgment in

the case of G. Mallikarjunappa v. Shamanur

Shivashankarappa, (2001) 4 SCC 428 it was held

that an Election Petition was not liable to be dismissed

in limine under Section 86 of the Act for non-

compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1) or (2) of

1951 Act or of its proviso; the defect in the verification

and affidavit is a curable defect. In the case of

A. Manju (Supra) and Thangjam Arunkumar (Supra)

it has been held that the filing of affidavit under the

proviso to Section 83 (1) (c) of the R.P. Act is not of

mandatory character and that substantial compliance

therewith would suffice. If an affidavit is already on

record, albeit not in Form-25, the proper course would

be to afford the Election Petitioner an opportunity to

file a correct affidavit in conformity with the prescribed

form. This Court has already held that the affidavit

accompanying the Election Petition substantially

complies with the requirement of Form 25 and

therefore, the defect, if any, has to be treated as

curable in nature. Any other interpretation would

amount to taking a hyper-technical view. It would be

worthwhile to refer to the observations made in

A. Manju (supra) as follows:

"22. We must begin at the inception by stating that intrinsically, election law is technical in nature. In the present matter, an election conducted under an independent body like the Election Commission is sought to be assailed, where the mandate of the public has gone in a particular way. The allegations must strictly fall within the parameters of the manner in which such a mandate can be overturned. The primary plea taken by the appellant is largely that success in the elections was obtained by concealment of material, which would have been germane in determining the opinion of the electorate. In effect, were such material to be available with the electorate, they would have exercised another option on the basis of it. However, while the requirements to be met in the election petition may be technical in nature, they are not hypertechnical, as observed in Ponnala Lakshmaiah case [Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy, (2012) 7 SCC 788] . We have considered the aforesaid aspect by quoting the observations made therein which have received the imprimatur of a larger Bench."

27. Even otherwise, once this Court has found that the

allegations pleaded in the Election Petition amount to

corrupt practices, then the Election Petition cannot be

rejected at the threshold merely on the ground of absence

of an affidavit in Form 25, or even on the assumption that

the affidavit appended to the Election Petition does not

strictly comply with the requirements of Form 25. As held

by the Supreme Court in Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v.

Kenn Raikhan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2548, the rejection of

an Election Petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule

11 CPC would depend upon the nature and extent of

statutory compliance, and where the pleadings, read as a

whole, disclose material facts, a cause of action, and triable

issues, the Election Petition ought not to be dismissed in

limine.

The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in

Kimneo Haokip Hangshing (Supra), are reproduced as

follows-

"7. Over the years, Election Petitions have been filed invariably on the grounds which are similar to the ones raised before this Court.

The only question is whether the Court can dismiss such a petition at the very threshold on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or that the petition needs a detailed consideration by the Court. The answer to this will depend upon what kind of statutory compliances have been made in the Election Petition.

The case of the present appellant before this Court is that if the provisions as referred above, wherein material details have to be given by the respondent and particularly the details of corrupt practices etc., has to be strictly construed and any deviation by the respondent on this requirement shall make the petition liable to be dismissed at the very threshold.

All the same, this is not what is the requirement of law. Rather the settled position of law here is that an Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a "substantial compliance" of the provisions.

8. Thus, we will have to see whether "substantial compliance" of Section 83(1)(a) and 83(1)(b) has been done by the respondent.

In para 15 of the Election Petition, the respondent has pleaded that construction worth approx. Rs. 2 crores has taken place on agricultural land of the appellant, however, the column for investment in land through construction has been left empty by the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent has also pleaded that the appellant was serving as a Committee Officer in the Assembly Secretariat, Manipur Legislative Assembly till 31.12.2021, yet, she has shown her income for FY 2021-2022 as Rs. 0/-, which is untrue. In para 16 of the Election Petition, the respondent has referred to Section 33 of RPA and alleged non-compliance with the requirement of furnishing true and correct information by candidates. Further, in ground A (as reproduced above) it is asserted that since the appellant has concealed her investment of Rs. 2 crores in her land, her nomination papers ought to have been rejected. On a perusal of the petition as a whole, including the averments reproduced above, it is clear that a cause of action has been disclosed by the respondent. Whether the appellant has concealed her investments and her income, and thus her nomination has been improperly accepted, is a triable issue.

9. Secondly, the affidavit, which is required as per the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of RPA has to be given in Form 25 as per the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, where Rule 94A reads as under:

"94A. Form of affidavit to be filed with election petition.-- The affidavit referred to in the proviso to subsection (1) of

section 83 shall be sworn before a magistrate of the first class or a notary or a commissioner of oaths and shall be in Form 25."

The relevant portion of Form 25 is also reproduced below:

I, ______, the petitioner in the accompanying election petition calling in question the election of Shri/Shrimati _____ (Respondent No.__) in the said petition) make solemn affirmation/oath and say--

(a) that the statements made in paragraphs ________ of the accompanying election petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of ________ and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs ________ of the same petition and in paragraphs _________ of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge;

(b) that the statements made in paragraphs ________ of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of _________ and the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs _________ of the said petition and in paragraphs _______ of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information...

10. A question had come up before a three Judge Bench of this Court in G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 as to whether an Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold even if the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate have not been given by a petitioner in terms of the proviso in Section 83(1)(c) of RPA. The finding of this Court was that this cannot be done even if an affidavit is not filed in terms of the proviso. What is mandatory, however, is that there should be substantial compliance. In other words, if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition cannot be summarily dismissed.

11. In a more recent case also from Manipur (Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1058), this Court upheld the dismissal of the returning candidate's Order VII Rule 11 application by the Manipur High Court in an Election Petition. The Court after referring to and applying the test laid down in Siddeshwar (supra) held as follows:

"14. The position of law that emerges for the above referred cases is clear. The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit."

12. In view of the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the High Court of Manipur

that the Election Petition discloses a cause of action and that there is substantial compliance of the requirements provided under provisions of RPA and thus the petition cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

13. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed."

[Emphasis added]

28. From the above analysis if it is clear that though the

affidavit appended to the Election Petition is not in the

prescribed format, yet it is in substantial compliance of the

requirement of Form-25.

29. Issue no. (ii) is answered accordingly.

30. Issue nos. (iii) and (iv) are intricately connected to each

other. Hence, both are taken up together for consideration.

Issue nos. (iii) and (iv)

31. Mr. Agarwal reiterates his contention that the defect

seen in the present case is a defect of substance and not of

form. Even otherwise, this Court granted three weeks' time

to the Election Petitioner to file affidavit in Form 25 by

order dated 21.3.2025, which expired on 11.4.2025. The

affidavit was however, filed on 24.4.2025 without

explaining the reasons for its delayed filing. Mr. Agarwal

therefore, argues that the affidavit so filed must be treated

as being barred by limitation.

32. Per contra, Mr. Mishra would argue that the provision

under Section 86(1), which empowers the Court to dismiss

the Election Petition at the threshold for non-compliance of

certain other provisions, does not refer to Section 83.

Therefore, any violation of Section 83 cannot be a ground

to invoke the power under Section 86(1). Mr. Mishra

further argues that even otherwise, Section 86(5) permits

amendment of pleadings by way of furnishing further

particulars of corrupt practice. Therefore, this being a

curable defect, the law of limitation would not apply.

33. Admittedly, a period of 45 days is prescribed for filing

of Election Petition to be reckoned from the date of

publication of the election result. There is no provision

whatsoever to extend the period of limitation under any

circumstance. There is no dispute that the Election Petition

was filed within the period of limitation. Now the question

is, whether the period of limitation having expired, the

Petitioner can be permitted to file a supplementary

affidavit. This Court has already held that the defect of

non-filing of Form 25 is a curable defect in view of the

settled position of law, being a defect of form and not of

substance. Had it been a defect of substance, it would have

rendered the defect incurable and in such situation, it

would not have been permissible to file any supplementary

affidavit as it would amount to extending the period of

limitation. The defect however, being of form and therefore,

curable, the question of limitation would not apply as

otherwise, the very doctrine of curability would be

redundant. In such event, the affidavit subsequently filed

would relate back to the date of presentation of the election

petition. The question of extending the period of limitation

therefore, does not arise. In the case of Vidyawati Gupta

v. Bhakti Hari Nayak, (2006) 2 SCC 777, the Supreme

Court observed as follows:

"In this regard we are inclined to agree with the consistent view of the three Chartered High Courts in the different decisions cited by Mr Mitra that the requirements of Order 6 and Order 7 of the Code, being procedural in nature, any omission in respect thereof will not render the plaint invalid and that such defect or omission will not only be curable but will also date back to the presentation of the plaint. We are also of the view that the reference to the provisions of the Code in Rule 1 of Chapter 7 of the Original Side Rules cannot be interpreted to limit the scope of such reference to only the provisions of the Code as were existing on the date of such incorporation. It was clearly the intention of the High Court when it framed the Original Side Rules that the plaint should be in conformity with the provisions of Order 6 and Order 7 of the Code. By necessary implication reference will also have to be made to

Section 26 and Order 4 of the Code which, along with Order 6 and Order 7, concerns the institution of suits. We are ad idem with Mr. Pradip Ghosh (sic) on this score. The provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 Order 4 of the Code, upon which the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had placed strong reliance, will also have to be read and understood in that context. The expression "duly" used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 Order 4 of the Code implies that the plaint must be filed in accordance with law. In our view, as has been repeatedly expressed by this Court in various decisions, rules of procedure are made to further the cause of justice and not to prove a hindrance thereto. Both in Khayumsab [(2006) 1 SCC 46 : JT (2005) 10 SC 1] and Kailash [(2005) 4 SCC 480] although dealing with the amended provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code, this Court gave expression to the salubrious principle that procedural enactments ought not to be construed in a manner which would prevent the Court from meeting the ends of justice in different situations."

[Emphasis added]

34. Thus, this Court holds that the Election Petitioner

can be permitted to file supplementary affidavit complying

with the requirement of Form-25 after filing of the Election

Petition or at least before commencement of trial, so that

the other side is not taken by surprise. It is relevant to

mention that in the instant case issues have been not yet

been settled and therefore, the question of the other side

being prejudiced does not arise.

35. Issue nos. (iii) and (iv) are answered accordingly.

Summing up

36. From the above analysis of facts and the settled

position of law, the conclusion of this Court can be

summed up as under:

(i) The affidavit accompanying the Election Petition, though

not in the prescribed format of Form-25 and therefore

defective, cannot be said to be non-est in law. The defects

noticed therein pertain to the manner of specification and

segregation of allegations based on personal knowledge and

information and are, therefore, defects of form and not of

substance.

(ii) The affidavit, read with the pleadings as a whole,

substantially complies with the requirements of the proviso

to Section 83(1)(c) of the R.P. Act read with Rule 94-A of

the Conduct of Election Rules. Consequently, the Election

Petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under

Section 86(1) of the Act.

(iii) The defect being curable in nature, the Election

Petitioner can file a supplementary affidavit in conformity

with Form-25 even after the presentation of the Election

Petition. The bar of limitation applicable to the filing of the

Election Petition shall not operate.

(iv) This Court possesses the jurisdiction to permit

rectification of such procedural defects which shall relate

back to the date of presentation of the Election Petition.

37. In view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court

and the mutual consensus of the parties, the agreed

portions of the pleadings shall stand struck off and the

parties are afforded reasonable opportunity to carry out

consequential amendments.

Conclusion.

38. The I.A is disposed of accordingly.

39. List the Election Petition on 25.02.2026 for filing of

the amended pleadings by both parties and hearing of I.A

No.64 of 2025.

.................................. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Ashok Kumar Behera