Case at a Glance
The High Court rejected an election petition challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha result from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, on an application under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court held that the served copies were properly attested under Section 81(3) even though two different rubber stamps were used, and that a defect in the Form-25 affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations does not by itself justify dismissing the entire petition. The election petition was restored, with the High Court to verify the attestation on the original Form-25 affidavit.
The respondent won the 2024 Lok Sabha election from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, and the appellant filed an election petition against the result. On the returned candidate’s application under Section 86 of the RoP Act, three objections were raised: the Form-25 affidavit in the served copy showed no notarisation; the attestation of the copy was defective because pages 1 to 84 carried an “attested to be true copy” stamp with the petitioner’s signature while pages 85 to 185 carried a “certified to be true copy” stamp; and pages 11, 16, 21 and 22 were missing.
The High Court rejected the missing-pages objection, held that the attestation was improper and rejected the petition, without discussing the Form-25 notarisation point. The election petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant relied on F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 05 SC CK 0028, (1991) 3 SCC 375, and argued that Section 86 mandates dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117; the respondent relied on Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, (1996) 03 SC CK 0080, (1996) 5 SCC 181.
The Key Question Before the Court
Must an election petition be dismissed at the threshold under Section 86 of the RoP Act because of mixed attestation stamps on the served copy, or because the served copy of the Form-25 affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations shows no attestation?
Attestation Under Section 81(3), Form-25 and the Reading of Dr Shipra and T.M. Jacob
Writing for the Bench, Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld the High Court’s finding that the missing-pages objection was an afterthought, finding “absolutely no reason to interfere.” On attestation, the Court noted that Section 81(3) requires copies attested by the petitioner under his own signature as true copies but prescribes no particular form. Concurring with F.A. Sapa v. Singora, it reversed the High Court, holding that the attestation was valid “since the different rubber stamps employed convey the same meaning.” On Form-25, which must be sworn before a First Class Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths, the Court found that the served copies showed no attestation at all.
The Court then examined Dr Shipra (Smt) v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, (1999) 04 SC CK 0080, (1999) 4 SCC 274, and T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian, (2001) 8 SCC 358. It held that Dr Shipra was distinguished, not overruled, in T.M. Jacob, that T. Phungzathang misunderstood T.M. Jacob on this point, and that “Dr Shipra (Smt) was never overruled.” Read correctly, a Form-25 defect does not require dismissal of the entire petition: only the corrupt-practice allegations fall, while independent grounds are decided on merits, and a Section 83 defect does not automatically attract Section 86. Applying the Constitution Bench in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, (1963) 05 SC CK 0005, the Court said a “copy” need not be exact; the test is whether the variation is calculated to mislead, and the original before the court can be checked. Citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 10 SC CK 0044, (2017) 16 SCC 680, it held the Constitution Bench view holds the field.
What the Court Actually Held
- No particular form of attestation is prescribed by Section 81(3); different rubber stamps conveying the same meaning are valid attestation, following F.A. Sapa v. Singora.
- The High Court’s rejection of the missing-pages objection as an afterthought was upheld.
- A defect in the Form-25 affidavit does not warrant dismissal of the whole election petition; at most the corrupt-practice allegations cannot be pursued, and other grounds are decided on merits.
- The election petition was restored; the High Court must check whether the original Form-25 affirmation was duly attested and, if not, proceed only on the other grounds.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies the relationship between Dr Shipra, T.M. Jacob and T. Phungzathang on Form-25 defects.
- It narrows the scope for technical, threshold dismissal of election petitions under Section 86.
- It gives practical guidance on attestation of served copies of election petitions.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Election Petitioners
- Attest every page of each served copy under your own signature as a true copy; the wording of the stamp is not decisive.
- Ensure the Form-25 affidavit is sworn before a Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths, and that the served copy shows it; otherwise corrupt-practice grounds are at risk.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between Section 81 defects (which attract Section 86) and Section 83 verification defects (which do not automatically do so).
- Rely on Murarka Radhey Shyam and this judgment on whether a variation in the copy is calculated to mislead.
- Keep the original petition’s attestation trail ready for verification.
Key Takeaways
- Mixed ‘attested’ and ‘certified’ true copy stamps did not invalidate the served copy.
- Dr Shipra remains good law, as read by this Bench.
- A Form-25 defect affects only the corrupt-practice allegations, not the whole petition.
- The Karimganj election petition goes back to the High Court for trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Form-25 in an election petition?
Under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, an election petition alleging corrupt practice must be accompanied by an affidavit in Form-25, sworn before a First Class Magistrate, a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths.
Did the Supreme Court decide who won the Karimganj election?
No. It only reversed the threshold rejection of the election petition and restored it to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.
What if the original Form-25 affidavit is not properly attested?
The Court directed that the High Court then must not permit the corrupt-practice allegations to be pursued, but must decide any other grounds pleaded on their merits.
Conclusion
Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah, (2026) 08 SC CK 0251 holds that election petitions should not be thrown out on form alone: attestation stamps are judged by meaning, and a Form-25 affidavit defect affects only the corrupt-practice allegations it supports.
Practical takeaway: In Section 86 applications, separate genuine Section 81 non-compliance from verification defects under Section 83; only the former leads to outright dismissal.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com