2026 INSC 915
Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors.
Supreme Court of India — Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025
Judgment dated: 24 August 2026
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
I. HEAD NOTES
1. Election Petition — Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Defects in copy served upon returned candidate — Paras 1–4
The appeal arose from an order of the High Court rejecting the appellant's Election Petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The successful candidate from No.7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, had sought rejection of the Election Petition on the grounds that:
the copy of the affidavit in Form-25 served upon him did not indicate notarisation;
pages 1–84 bore a rubber stamp stating “attested to be true copy of the petition”, whereas pages 85–185 bore the stamp “certified to be true copy”; and
four pages, namely pages 11, 16, 21 and 22, were allegedly missing.
2. Attestation under Section 81(3) — No prescribed form of attestation — Paras 8–9
Section 81(3) requires copies of an Election Petition supplied to the respondents to be attested by the Election Petitioner under his own signature as true copies.
Following F.A. Sapa v. Singora, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's signature at the foot of each page, certifying the copy as a true copy and accepting responsibility for its correctness, satisfies the requirement. No particular form of attestation is prescribed.
Different rubber stamps conveying the same meaning do not constitute non-compliance with Section 81(3).
3. Missing pages — Finding of fact affirmed — Para 7
The High Court had found the allegation regarding missing pages to be an afterthought, since the respondent had not raised the objection on earlier occasions when he appeared after service of summons.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with that finding.
4. Form-25 affidavit — Requirement of attestation — Paras 10–11
Form-25 under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 is required to be signed by the Election Petitioner and attested by a First-Class Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths, before whom the affidavit is solemnly affirmed.
In the present case, however, the copies supplied to the returned candidate contained no indication of such attestation or notarisation, not even the printed affirmation and space for the signature and date of the prescribed authority.
5. Dr Shipra and T.M. Jacob — Distinction between the two decisions — Paras 13–16
The Supreme Court examined Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and the Constitution Bench judgment in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose.
The Court held that Dr Shipra was not overruled by T.M. Jacob but was distinguished on its facts.
In T.M. Jacob, the copy contained an endorsement that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified before a Notary, with only the Notary's name, address, stamp and seal absent.
In Dr Shipra, there was no indication in the copy that the affidavit had been attested at all.
The present case was held to be identical to Dr Shipra.
6. Effect of defect in Form-25 — Section 83 versus Section 86 — Para 21
The Supreme Court clarified that a defect concerning Form-25 and the allegations of corrupt practices does not automatically entail dismissal of the entire Election Petition under Section 86.
Following Dr Shipra, if Form-25 read with Rule 94A is not in conformity with the statutory requirement, the portions containing allegations of corrupt practices may be struck off, while independent grounds in the Election Petition are required to be tried and decided on merits.
The Court expressly observed that a defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86.
7. Murarka Radhey Shyam — Defect in verification — True copy — Paras 22–25
The Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore was examined.
It was held that a defect in verification under Section 83(1)(c) is not necessarily fatal to maintainability.
The expression “copy” in Section 81(3) does not require an absolutely exact reproduction. The relevant test is whether the copy is sufficiently true so that an ordinary person cannot be misled by the variation.
The Constitution Bench further held that absence of the endorsement of affirmation in the copy, where the original affidavit filed before the Court had been properly verified, does not necessarily mislead the returned candidate.
8. Precedential effect of Constitution Bench decision — Para 25
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution Bench judgment in Murarka Radhey Shyam continues to govern the field.
The contrary observations of smaller Benches cannot prevail over the Constitution Bench decision. The Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi concerning the precedential value of decisions of larger Benches.
9. Restoration of Election Petition — Para 26
The original Form-25 affidavit filed before the High Court had admittedly been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits.
The Supreme Court therefore directed the High Court to:
verify whether due attestation of the affirmation on oath was available in the original;
if such attestation was available, proceed with the Election Petition on merits;
if such attestation was not available, disallow the allegations of corrupt practices but proceed with the other independent grounds, if any.
The High Court's order was consequently reversed and the Election Petition restored.
II. FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE
1. Election and Election Petition — Para 1
The respondent was the successful candidate elected from No.7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the 2024 Lok Sabha general elections.
The appellant instituted an Election Petition challenging the election.
The respondent sought rejection of the Election Petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Three objections before the High Court — Para 3
The respondent raised three principal objections:
First objection — Form-25
The copy of Form-25 served upon the respondent did not indicate that the affidavit had been notarised.
Second objection — Attestation of copies
Different rubber stamps were used on different portions of the copy:
pages 1–84 — “attested to be true copy of the petition”;
pages 85–185 — “certified to be true copy.”
Third objection — Missing pages
Pages 11, 16, 21 and 22 were alleged to be missing from the copy served upon the respondent.
3. High Court's findings — Para 4
The High Court:
found the attestation to be improper;
did not deal with the question of notarisation in Form-25; and
rejected the objection concerning the missing pages.
The appellant challenged those findings before the Supreme Court.
III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. Appellant's contentions — Para 5
The appellant relied upon F.A. Sapa v. Singora, contending that:
the petitioner's signature at the foot of every page;
certifying the copy as a true copy; and
taking responsibility for its correctness
was sufficient compliance with Section 81(3).
It was further contended that Section 86 mandates dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117, whereas any defect relating to Form-25 would fall within Section 83 and would not justify peremptory dismissal under Section 86.
2. Respondent's contentions — Para 6
The respondent contended that there was no finding by the High Court concerning Form-25 and that, although the original affidavit had been attested by the Commissioner of Affidavits, the copy served upon the respondent contained no indication of such attestation.
Reliance was placed on Dr Shipra.
The respondent also contended that the stamp “certified true copy” could be accepted only if the copies supplied were certified copies.
IV. LAW APPLIED AND DISCUSSED
1. Section 81(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Paras 8–9
Section 81(3) requires the Election Petition to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and requires each copy to be attested by the Election Petitioner under his own signature as a true copy.
The Supreme Court, following F.A. Sapa, held that the essential requirement is:
the petitioner's own signature certifying the copy as a true copy and assuming responsibility for its correctness.
The statute prescribes no particular form of attestation.
Accordingly, the difference between the two rubber stamps used in the present case did not amount to non-compliance because both conveyed the same meaning.
2. Form-25 and Rule 94A — Paras 10–11
Form-25 is prescribed for an affidavit alleging corrupt practices.
The affidavit must be signed by the Election Petitioner and attested by the prescribed authority before whom it is solemnly affirmed.
The issue before the Court was not whether the original affidavit filed before the Court had been affirmed. It admittedly had been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits.
The difficulty was that the copy served upon the returned candidate gave no indication of such attestation.
The Court found that the copies before it contained no attestation, notarisation, printed affirmation or space showing the signature and date of the prescribed authority.
3. Dr Shipra — Para 13
In Dr Shipra, the copy served upon the returned candidate did not contain the required verification/attestation of the affidavit supporting allegations of corrupt practices.
The decision treated such compliance as important because allegations of corrupt practices carry serious statutory consequences.
The Supreme Court in the present case recognised that Dr Shipra dealt with a situation where the copy gave no indication of the required attestation.
4. T.M. Jacob — Paras 14–15
The Constitution Bench in T.M. Jacob dealt with a materially different defect.
There, the copy itself indicated that the affidavit had been duly affirmed, signed and verified before a Notary. What was absent was the Notary's name and address and stamp and seal.
The Supreme Court held that this defect did not create apprehension of misrepresentation or demonstrate failure of statutory compliance.
Thus, T.M. Jacob did not overrule Dr Shipra; it distinguished it on materially different facts.
5. T. Phungzathang — Paras 17–20
The appellant relied upon T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian, contending that it had treated Dr Shipra as no longer good law after T.M. Jacob and had applied principles of substantial compliance and curability.
The Supreme Court rejected that understanding.
It held that Dr Shipra had never been overruled.
The Court expressly stated that T. Phungzathang had proceeded on an incorrect understanding of T.M. Jacob.
6. Section 83 and Section 86 — Para 21
This distinction is central to the judgment.
The Court held that a defect relating to Form-25 under Section 83 does not by itself require dismissal of the entire Election Petition under Section 86.
If the affidavit does not comply with the prescribed requirement, the allegations of corrupt practices may be struck off.
However, other independent grounds of challenge remain available for trial on merits.
Thus, the statutory consequence depends upon the nature of the defect and the statutory provision governing it.
7. Murarka Radhey Shyam — Paras 22–24
The Constitution Bench in Murarka Radhey Shyam held that a defect in verification under Section 83(1)(c) is not necessarily fatal to maintainability.
The Court further held that “copy” under Section 81(3) does not mean an absolutely exact copy.
The test is whether the copy is sufficiently true that an ordinary person would not be misled by the variation.
Where the original affidavit filed before the Court had been properly verified, absence of the endorsement in the copy does not necessarily amount to fatal non-compliance if it neither misrepresents nor misleads the returned candidate.
8. Precedential hierarchy — Para 25
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam governs the issue.
The contrary view of smaller Benches cannot displace the binding effect of the Constitution Bench decision.
V. FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Different forms of attestation on the copies did not violate Section 81(3) — Paras 8–9.
The two rubber stamps conveyed the same substantive meaning, and the statute prescribes no particular form of attestation.
2. The allegation regarding missing pages was rightly rejected — Para 7.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's finding that the objection was an afterthought.
3. The Form-25 issue required examination of the original affidavit — Paras 10–11, 26.
The original affidavit was admittedly affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits, but the copies served upon the respondent did not disclose such attestation.
The High Court was therefore directed to verify the original record.
4. Dr Shipra remains good law — Paras 14–20.
The Supreme Court expressly rejected the proposition that Dr Shipra had been overruled by T.M. Jacob.
5. Defect in Form-25 does not require dismissal of the entire Election Petition under Section 86 — Para 21.
Where the defect concerns the allegations of corrupt practices under Section 83, those allegations may be struck off, while independent grounds remain for adjudication.
6. Murarka Radhey Shyam governs the question of verification defects — Paras 22–25.
The Constitution Bench decision continues to hold the field.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court rejecting the Election Petition.
The Election Petition was restored to the High Court with a specific direction concerning Form-25.
The High Court is required to verify the original Form-25 affidavit:
If due attestation of the affirmation on oath is found in the original: the Election Petition shall proceed on merits.
If due attestation is not found in the original: the allegations concerning corrupt practices shall not be permitted to be urged, but the High Court shall proceed to consider and decide other independent grounds, if any, on merits.
The Court therefore did not finally determine the merits of the election challenge.
Core legal proposition
Non-compliance relating to the copy of Form-25 does not, in every case, warrant peremptory dismissal of the entire Election Petition under Section 86. The statutory consequences depend upon the nature of the defect and the provision with which compliance is alleged to be deficient. A defect concerning the affidavit supporting allegations of corrupt practices may affect those allegations, while independent grounds of challenge remain available for adjudication. At the same time, where the copy supplied to the returned candidate contains no indication whatsoever of the prescribed attestation, the principles stated in Dr Shipra remain applicable; that decision was not overruled by T.M. Jacob.
