G.M. SIDDESHWAR versus PRASANNA KUMAR

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 1107 · Decided: 08-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 4 S.C.R. 1107 
G.M. SIDDESHWAR 
v. 
PRASANNA KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2013 etc.) 
MARCH 08, 2013 
[R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND MADAN B. 
LOKUR, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Election petition - Alleging resort to corrupt practice by 
the returned candidate - Whether imperative to file additional 
affidavit as required under Or. VI r.15(4) CPC, in addition to 
A 
B 
c 
the affidavit as required by proviso to s. 83(1) of the 
Representation of the People Act - Held: The Act does not 0 
mandate filing of an additional affidavit, but requires only 
verification - Hence additional affidavit u!Or. VI r.15(4) is not 
required - A composite affidavit, both in support of the 
averments made in the petition and with regard to allegation 
of corrupt practices would be sufficient - Representation of the 
E 
People Act, 1951 - s.83(1) - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. VI r.15(4). 
Election Petition - Maintainability - Petition whether liable 
to summary dismissal if affidavit is not in statutory form - Held: 
If there is substantial compliance with the statutory form, 
F 
petition cannot be dismissed summarily - Just because of the 
defective affidavit, the petition, will not cease to be election 
petition - The defects are curable - Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 - s. 83 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 -
r.94-A, Form No.25. 
G 
The questions for consideration in the present 
appeals were whether in order to maintain an election 
petition (wherein resort to corrupt practices were alleged 
1107 
H 
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A against the returned candidate), was it imperative for the 
election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of Or. VI 
r.15(4) CPC, in support of the averments made in the 
election petition, in addition to an affidavit as required by 
the proviso to s.83(1) of Representation of the People Act, 
B 1951; and that whether an election petition is liable to be 
dismissed summarily, if an affidavit filed in support of the 
allegations of corrupt practices of returned candidate 
was not in the Statutory Form No.25 as prescribed by the 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A plain and simple reading of Section 
83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 
clearly indicates that the requirement of an 'additional' 
D affidavit is not to be found therein. While the requirement 
of "also" filing an affidavit in support of pleadings filed 
under the CPC may be mandatory in terms of Order VI 
Rule 15(4) of the CPC, the affidavit is not a part of the 
verification of the pleadings - both are quite different. 
E While the Act does require a verification of the pleadings, 
the plain language of Section 83(1)(c) of the Act does not 
require an affidavit in support of the pleadings in an 
election petition. The Court is being asked to read a 
requirement that does not exist in Section 83(1)(c) of the 
F Act. [Para 30] [1122-D-F] 
P.A. Mohammed Riyas vs. M.K. Raghavan and Ors. 
(2012) 5 SCC511: 2012 (4) SCR 56 - disapproved. 
Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 
G 757: 1995 (3) SCR 964; Mohan Singh vs. Amar Singh, 
(1998) 6 SCC 686: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 - referred to. 
163'" Report of the Law Commission of India (LC/) on the 
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997 - referred 
H to. 
G.M. SIDDESHWAR v. PRASANNA KUMAR 
1109 
1.2. The procedure of filing a composite affidavit, both 
A 
in support of the averments made in the election petition 
and with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices by 
the returned candidate, is not contrary to law and cannot 
be faulted. Such a composite affidavit would not only be 
in substantial compliance with the requirements of the 
B 
Act but would actually be in full compliance thereof. The 
filing of two affidavits is not warranted by the Act nor is 
it necessary, especially when a composite affidavit can 
achieve the desired result. [Para 34) [1124-D-E] 
1.3. The Court must make a fine balance between the 
C 
purity of the election process and the avoidance of an 
election petition being a source of annoyance to the 
returned candidate and his constituents. Hence the 
salutary intention of the Law Commission to ensure purity 
in the litigation process must extend to an election 
D 
petition notwithstanding the mandate of Parliament as 
expressed in Section 83 of the Act. [Para 35] [1124-F-G; 
1125-C] 
Azhar Hussain vs. 

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