A. MANJU versus PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R & ORS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 13-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 195
195
A. MANJU
v.
PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R & ORS
(Civil Appeal No. 1774 of 2020)
DECEMBER 13, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 – r.94A – Non-submission
of Form 25 – Election petition containing allegations of corrupt
practices – Whether election petition can be thrown out at the
threshold on a plea of the elected candidate that the petition is not
supported by an affidavit in Form 25 – Held: Non-submission of
Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition –
On facts, looking at the election petition, the prayer clause is
followed by a verification – There is also a verifying affidavit in
support of the election petition – Thus, factually it would not be
appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition,
albeit not in Form 25 – This is a curable defect and the Judge
trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to
the election petitioner to file an affidavit in support of the petition
in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with
the election petition – Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form
25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be
filed in Form 25 – The petition is at a threshold stage – It is not as
if the election petitioner has failed to cure the defect even on being
pointed out so – This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit
now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is
sought to be urged on behalf of elected candidate – Election
petitioner has stated the case clearly and in no uncertain terms
with supporting material in the election petition – Whether the
violation is made out by elected candidate or not would be a matter
of trial but certainly not a matter to be shut out at the threshold –
Representation of People Act, 1961 – s.86(1) – Elections laws.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.  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 hyper-technical. The hyper-technical view sought to be taken
of non-signing and verification of the index and the synopsis has
been rightly rejected by the High Court. [Paras 19 and 20]
[207-A-C]
2. The High Court did not fall into an error while considering
the election petition as a whole to come to the conclusion that
the allegations of the appellant were not confined only to Section
33A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit as undue influence
and improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No.1 were
also pleaded as violation of the mandate under Sections 123 and
100 of the RP Act. Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to
the dismissal of the election petition. In election petition, the
prayer clause is followed by a verification. There is also a verifying
affidavit in support of the election petition. Thus, factually it would
not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of
the petition, albeit not in Form 25. This was a curable defect and
the Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an
opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the
petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit
filed with the election petition.[Paras 22, 23][207-F-G; 208-B-D]
Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh
Rathore AIR 1964 SC 1545 : [1964] 3 SCR 573 –
followed.
Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors.
AIR 2012 SC 2638; G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar
(2013) 4 SCC 776: [2013] 4 SCR 1107 – relied on.
Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone (1980) 1 SCC 403 :
[1980] 1 SCR 1177; B.R. Patil v. Rajeev Chandrashekhar
& Ors.ILR 2007 Kar 317; Purushottam v. Returning
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
Officer, Amravati & Ors. AIR 1992 Bom 227; Ch.
Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, Hyderabad &
Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1027 : [1964] 6 SCR 213;
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar & Ors. (2015) 3 SCC
467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987; H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy
Gowda & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 768 : [1999] 1 SCR 198;
T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC
358 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.