Affidavit compliance in election petitions upheld, and a High Court rule could not override statutory jurisdiction under election law.

An election petition challenge turned on whether the corrupt-practice allegations were supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied Form 25. The Court held that the objection before the High Court concerned the affidavit's form and content, not its filing with the petition, and that no conclusive earlier finding barred later clarification that two affidavits had been filed and that the relevant affidavit complied with the statutory requirement. It also held that a High Court rule could not override the jurisdictional scheme under Section 80A(2), so the clarification application was not confined to a Division Bench on that basis. The affidavit finding was sustained and the rule-based objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the election petition was accompanied by the required affidavit in support of the corrupt-practice allegations and whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied the prescribed form; (ii) whether Rule 13 of Chapter IV of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008 could require a Division Bench to hear the clarification application despite Section 80A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): whether the election petition was accompanied by the required affidavit in support of the corrupt-practice allegations and whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied the prescribed form.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with the proviso requiring an affidavit in the prescribed form and Rule 94A of the 1956 Rules, was examined in the light of the material on record. The Court held that the objection before the High Court was directed to the form and content of the affidavit, not to the fact of its filing with the election petition. It further held that the High Court had not recorded a clear finding on whether the affidavit at pages 394-395 was the affidavit filed along with the election petition and whether it complied with Form 25. The later finding in clarification proceedings that two affidavits were filed and that the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied the proviso was therefore not barred by any earlier conclusive finding. The Court also held that the act or omission of the court in not affixing the registrar's seal and signature could not prejudice the petitioner.

Conclusion: The affidavit issue was answered in favour of the election petitioner, and the finding that the affidavit at pages 394-395 satisfied the statutory requirement was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether Rule 13 of Chapter IV of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008 could require a Division Bench to hear the clarification application despite Section 80A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The Court held that election petitions, including incidental questions arising during their adjudication, are governed by Section 80A(2), which contemplates ordinary exercise of jurisdiction by a Single Judge subject to assignment by the Chief Justice. A High Court rule made under Article 225 cannot curtail the statutory discretion conferred by the Act. The clarification application concerned record and factual clarification in an election petition and, in any event, the rule could not override the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on Rule 13 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the returned candidate were dismissed and the appeal by the election petitioner was allowed, with the High Court's clarification-based findings on the affidavit being sustained and the challenge based on the High Court Rules failing.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court rule cannot override a statutory allocation of jurisdiction under the Representation of the People Act, and where the record shows that the pleaded objection was only to the form of the affidavit, a later factual clarification on whether the required affidavit was filed and complied with the prescribed form can be upheld if no conclusive earlier finding on that fact existed.

---