Technical defects in election petitions are not fatal where copies are substantially true and curable before hearing.

Minor or technical defects in election petitions do not justify rejection where the copies served are substantially true copies, the variation is not misleading, and any deficiency is cured before hearing. The Supreme Court applied this principle to defects under section 81(3), finding that absence of a fresh signature, affidavit stamp, or signature in a copy was not a vital defect and that later service of true copies supported compliance. It further stated that imperfect verification or affidavit under section 83(1)(c) is not fatal unless the defect goes to the root of maintainability. Section 86 cannot be used to dismiss petitions at the threshold for such curable procedural defects.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the election petitions were liable to be rejected for non-compliance with section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that the copies served were not true copies or were not filed in the requisite number at presentation; (ii) Whether defects in verification and accompanying affidavit attracted rejection under section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; (iii) Whether the election petitions could be dismissed at the threshold under section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the alleged procedural defects.

Issue (i): Whether the election petitions were liable to be rejected for non-compliance with section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that the copies served were not true copies or were not filed in the requisite number at presentation.

Analysis: The Registry endorsement that the petitions were in order, together with the later service of true copies before the preliminary hearing, raised a presumption that the petitions had been properly presented. The defects relied upon in the served copies, including absence of a fresh signature on one page, omission of the affidavit stamp and absence of a signature in the affidavit copy, were not of a vital nature. The legal test is whether the copy is substantially the same as the original and whether any variation is capable of misleading a reasonable reader. Such minor defects do not amount to total non-compliance, and a subsequent supply of true copies before hearing can cure the objection where no prejudice is shown.

Conclusion: The election petitions were not liable to be rejected under section 81(3).

Issue (ii): Whether defects in verification and accompanying affidavit attracted rejection under section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Verification under section 83(1)(c) is not treated as a fatal requirement where the defect is technical and does not affect the maintainability of the petition. The affidavit and its copy, even if imperfectly reflected, did not disclose a defect of such gravity as to justify dismissal at the threshold. The governing principle is that a mere defect in verification, without a substantive failure going to the root of the petition, does not warrant rejection when the petition is otherwise in order.

Conclusion: The election petitions were not liable to be rejected under section 83(1)(c).

Issue (iii): Whether the election petitions could be dismissed at the threshold under section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the alleged procedural defects.

Analysis: Section 86 authorises dismissal only for non-compliance of the specific mandatory provisions. On the facts, there was no total failure to file requisite copies, no fatal defect in the copies served, and no maintainability defect arising from verification. The objections were technical and were either unsupported by the record or stood cured by subsequent service of true copies before the matter was heard. The High Court therefore erred in invoking section 86 to terminate the petitions without trial.

Conclusion: The election petitions could not be dismissed under section 86 on the grounds relied upon by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the election petitions were restored to the High Court for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Minor or technical defects in copies, verification, or affidavit do not justify dismissal of an election petition under section 86 unless the defect is vital, substantial, and incapable of being treated as compliance or cured before hearing.

---