Election petition true-copy and misdescription rules: minor defects are not fatal where no prejudice or confusion is caused.

A copy of an affidavit supplied with an election petition is treated as a true copy unless the omission or variation is material, substantial, or likely to mislead the respondent; the absence of the Oath Commissioner's endorsement, seal, or signature in the supplied copy was therefore not treated as fatal non-compliance with Section 81(3). A minor misdescription or wrong spelling of a contesting candidate in the party array does not amount to non-compliance with Section 82 where the intended respondent is otherwise clearly identifiable from the record and no prejudice is caused. The election petition was thus not liable to rejection on these technical grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission of the Oath Commissioner's endorsement, seal or signature in the copy of the affidavit supplied with the election petition amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether misdescription of a contesting candidate in the array of parties amounted to non-compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether omission of the Oath Commissioner's endorsement, seal or signature in the copy of the affidavit supplied with the election petition amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The object of supplying a true copy is to ensure that the returned candidate gets a correct and workable understanding of the allegations and can meet them effectively. The defect is not fatal unless the variation from the original is material or substantial and likely to mislead a reasonable person. Applying the constitutional bench line of authority, the absence of the Oath Commissioner's endorsement in the supplied copy, where the original affidavit was duly sworn and the copy otherwise conveyed that the petition supported allegations of corrupt practice on affidavit, was not treated as a vital deviation warranting dismissal at the threshold. Substance, not a merely technical defect, controls the inquiry.

Conclusion: The omission did not amount to fatal non-compliance with Section 81(3), and dismissal of the election petition on that ground was unwarranted.

Issue (ii): Whether misdescription of a contesting candidate in the array of parties amounted to non-compliance with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The pleaded intention was to implead the actual contesting candidate, and the election return and other materials on record identified the person who had contested. The wrong spelling in the name was held to be a clerical or typographical error without legal consequence, because the identity of the intended respondent was otherwise clear and no prejudice or confusion was caused. The requirement of joinder under the election law is tested on substance, and a minor misdescription does not defeat the petition where the correct person is plainly identifiable from the record.

Conclusion: The misdescription did not constitute non-compliance with Section 82, and the petition was not liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The election petition could not be rejected on the technical grounds accepted by the High Court, and the dismissal order was set aside while the other objections were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election petition, a copy of the affidavit is a true copy if it does not contain a material or misleading variation, and a minor misdescription of a contesting candidate does not amount to non-compliance where identity is otherwise clear and no prejudice is caused.

---