UMESH CHALLIYIL versus K.P. RAJENDRAN

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 457 · Decided: 26-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 457 
UMESH CHALLIYIL 
A 
v. 
K.P. RAJENDRAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 598 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2008 
B 
.. 
[A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
>· 
Representation of the People Act, 1961: s.83 - Election 
petition on the ground of corrupt practices - Rejection of, on 
account of defects in verification of election petition and in c 
affirmation of affidavit- High Court dismissed election petition 
under s. 86 - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - The defects 
were of very minor nature - It is true that verification was not in 
same words as was required in form No. 7 under Rule 82 of 
the Conduct of Election Rules of High Court of Kera/a, 1971 D 
framed in exercise of power under Article 225 of the 
Constitution of India - However, it can not be said to be bad if 
it has not used the word, "true" and expressed in other way -
There seems to be no distinction between the two -Affirmation 
a/so does not in any way go to the root of the matter so as to 
E 
render the entire election petition not properly constituted -
Both the defects were too innocuous to have resulted in 
dismissal of the election petition - High Court instead to giving 
opportunity to amend or cure defects resorted to easy course 
of dismissal of election petition which was not warranted -
Matter remitted to High Court - Code of Conduct Rules, 1961 
F 
- Rule 94A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 6 r. 15. 
The appellant filed election petition praying that 
election of the respondent to the Legislative assembly be 
declared void on the ground of corrupt practices. The G 
respondent who was elected candidate raised preliminary 
objections on the maintainability of the election petitions 
that the affidavit in Form 25 was not affirmed and as such, 
the affirmation was not duly certified; that the verification 
457 
H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A of the election petition was defective; that the sources of 
information as regards the allegations of corrupt practices 
of which the appellant did not have personal knowledge; 
and the allegations in the election petition were vague and 
lacked pleadings as regards the material particulars. The 
B High Court accepted the preliminary objections and 
dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
• 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1. As per s.83 of the Representation of People 
Act, 1961, a concise statement of material facts should be 
given in the petition and if the allegations are of corrupt 
practice then the full statement of all names of the parties 
alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the 
D date and place of the commission of each such practice 
has to be disclosed and it should be signed by the 
petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the CPC 
for verification of the pleadings . It further provided that 
where the allegations are of corrupt practice, the petition 
E should also be accompanied by an affidavit in the 
prescribed form in support of the allegation of such 
corrupt practice and the particulars thereof in Form No.25. 
The verification which is required as per the provisions 
of the CPC under Order 6 Rule 15 is that the pleadings 
F 
should be verified and it should specify with reference to 
the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he 
verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon 
information which he received is believed to be true. 
(Paras 3, 4] (464-A-E] 
G 
2. In the affidavit in question instead of writing "that I 
believe to be true" what has been stated , "no part thereof 
is false and nothing which is relevant has been 
concealed." This verification has been found by High 
Court to be defective. It is true it is not in same words as 
H was required in Form No.7 under Rule 82 of the Conduct 
UMESH CHALLIYIL v. K.P. RAJENDRAN 
459 
.. 
of Election Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971 framed in A 
exercise of power under Article 225 of the Constitution of 
India. After going through the affidavit filed by the appellant 
and the format of the concluding portion of the affidavit, 
the verification can be said to be bad except that it has 
not used the word, "true" it is expressed in other way, " B 
no part thereof is false and nothing which is relevant has 
been concealed." There seems to be no distinction 
... 
lo 
between the two. But the substance and the essence has 
been conveyed. Therefore, High Court has taken incorrect 
view that the verification 

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