LexTANKADHAR TRIPATHY versus DIPALI DAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1137 : 2025 INSC 1017 Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das (Civil Appeal No. 11017 of 2025) 22 August 2025 [Surya Kant* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a fatal defect, rendering the Election Petition non-maintainable at the threshold. Headnotes† Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.83(1)(c) – Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 – Rule 94-A – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11 – Whether the requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to s.83(1)(c) of the RP Act is of a mandatory character: Held: This Court has underscored that the requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to s.83(1)(c) of the RP Act is not of a mandatory character, and that ‘substantial compliance’ therewith would suffice – Where an affidavit is already on record, albeit not in the prescribed Form 25, the proper course would be to afford the Election Petitioner an opportunity to file a corrected affidavit in conformity with the prescribed form – On facts, there are 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 – This Court deems 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. [Paras 17, 23] Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.80-A – High Court Rules – Chapter XXXIII – Rules, 7, 21: Held: It becomes clear from a perusal of these Rules (Rules 7 and 21) that at the stage of presenting an Election Petition, it * Author 1138 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports must be examined by the prescribed officer of the High Court, alongwith its accompanying documents, so as to ensure that the same conforms with the requirements of law and the applicable rules – During this process, if it is found that the Election Petition or its accompanying documents suffer from any defects or omissions, the same shall be placed before the learned Judge-cum-Election Tribunal – The judicial proceedings thereafter shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures described in Rule 21 – Such procedure also contemplates compliance with the contents and format of an affidavit elaborately described in Chapter VI of the High Court Rules – In the instant case, the impugned order does not clarify whether the above-stated process of scrutiny was duly followed by the prescribed officer at the time of presentation of the Election Petition. [Paras 20, 21] Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.83(1)(c) – Obligation on the Election Petitioner: Held: The law evolved in the recent decisions of this Court, places an obligation on the Election Petitioner to file an affidavit which amounts to ‘substantial compliance’ with the prescribed format – Whether an affidavit appended with an Election Petition has ‘substantially complied’ with or ‘omitted’ to do so is essentially a question of fact to be determined by juxtaposing the allegations of ‘corrupt practices’ averred in the Election Petition vis-à-vis the contents of the supporting affidavit – Substantial compliance in ordinary terms means, almost, actual compliance with the essence of the enactment, or perhaps, in simpler terms, to do all that is reasonably expected, which satisfies the substance of the Statute – It, however, cannot be inferred to mean mere lip service to the requirements of the law – That being so, although the High Court has concluded that the affidavit ‘substantially complied’ with the proviso to s.83(1)(c), it has not detailed the examination conducted in order to reach such a conclusion. [Para 22] Case Law Cited Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh and Others [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 331 : (2000) 8 SCC 191; G. M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar [2013] 4 SCR 1107 : (2013) 4 SCC 776; A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna [2021] 12 SCR 195 : (2022) 3 SCC 269; Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh [2023] 11 SCR 392 : (2023) 17 SCC 500 – referred to. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1139 Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das List of Acts Representation of the People Act, 1951; Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961; High Court Rules; Code of Civil Procedure, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.