True copy of affidavit in corrupt practice election petitions is mandatory; omission is not cured by substantial compliance.

In election petitions alleging corrupt practices, the affidavit and its true copy must be supplied in the prescribed form, including the affirmation before the prescribed authority or Oath Commissioner, so that the returned candidate is not misled. The Court treated non-supply of a true copy containing the requisite affirmation as a mandatory defect; the doctrine of substantial compliance did not apply, and the omission was not a curable irregularity. The election petition was therefore dismissed for failure to supply a true copy of the affidavit, and that dismissal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the election petition was liable to dismissal for failure to supply a true copy of the affidavit to the returned candidate, and whether such defect could be treated as substantial compliance or as a curable irregularity.

Analysis: The supplied copy of the affidavit did not contain the affirmation before the prescribed authority/Oath Commissioner. In election petitions alleging corrupt practices, the affidavit and its true copy are required to be supplied in the prescribed form so that the returned candidate is not misled. The requirement is mandatory, and the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to such a defect. The omission was treated as a serious defect and not as a curable irregularity.

Conclusion: The election petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of non-supply of a true copy of the affidavit, and the dismissal was sustained.

---