True copy requirement in election petitions permits substantial compliance where omissions are not material or misleading.

In election petitions, a copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate need not be an exact reproduction if it substantially reproduces the original and does not omit a material feature likely to mislead. The Supreme Court treated an earlier ruling on true copies of affidavits as confined to its own facts, because the defect there was materially different. On the present facts, omission of the notary's name, seal and stamp was held inconsequential where the copy still showed affirmation, signature and verification before a notary, and Annexure XV matched the original. Substantial compliance with Section 81(3) was therefore accepted and dismissal under Section 86(1) was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the principle laid down in the earlier decision on true copies of affidavits accompanying election petitions applied to the facts of this case; (ii) whether the alleged omission of the notary's name, seal and stamp in the copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 so as to require dismissal of the election petition.

Issue (i): whether the principle laid down in the earlier decision on true copies of affidavits accompanying election petitions applied to the facts of this case

Analysis: The earlier decision was confined to its own fact situation. The defect there was not merely the absence of the notary's particulars, but a more serious failure that made the copy appear as if there had been no due verification and attestation at all. The Court read that ruling as turning on a materially different factual matrix and declined to extend its observations as a general rule divorced from context.

Conclusion: The earlier decision did not govern the facts of this case.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged omission of the notary's name, seal and stamp in the copy of the affidavit served on the returned candidate amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 so as to require dismissal of the election petition

Analysis: The statutory requirement of a true copy under Section 81(3) is meant to ensure that the respondent is not misled in meeting the charges. Applying the settled test that a copy need not be an absolutely exact reproduction, the Court held that only a material or vital variation that is likely to mislead a reasonable person attracts dismissal under Section 86(1). Here, the copy of the affidavit still showed that it had been affirmed, signed and verified before a notary; the omission of the notary's name, address, seal and stamp was held to be inconsequential and incapable of causing prejudice. The copy of Annexure XV was also found to be identical to the original.

Conclusion: There was substantial compliance with Section 81(3), and the election petition was not liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1).

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's refusal to reject the election petition at the threshold was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In election petitions, a copy will satisfy the statutory requirement of a true copy if it substantially reproduces the original and does not omit a material feature likely to mislead the respondent; only a vital defect causing possible prejudice attracts dismissal.

---