Supreme Court: Election petitioners not required to file additional affidavit. Defects in affidavits curable.

The Supreme Court clarified that an election petitioner is not mandated to file an affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure in addition to Form No. 25. The Court emphasized that defects in affidavits, including format issues, are curable, and substantial compliance suffices. The Court also reiterated that an election petition cannot be summarily dismissed for non-compliance with statutory requirements and affirmed the High Court's decision to strike out vague paragraphs while allowing the petition to proceed. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment on the curability of defects and the need for substantial compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of an affidavit u/s Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure for an election petition.
2. Compliance with statutory Form No. 25 for affidavits alleging corrupt practices.
3. Summary dismissal of an election petition u/s 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
4. Whether defects in affidavits are curable.
5. Striking out paragraphs of an election petition under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Necessity of an affidavit u/s Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Supreme Court held that there is no mandate in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requiring an election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure in addition to an affidavit in Form No. 25. The Court stated that the requirement of "also" filing an affidavit in support of pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean that the verification of a plaint is incomplete without it. The affidavit is a stand-alone document and not part of the verification of the pleadings.

2. Compliance with statutory Form No. 25 for affidavits alleging corrupt practices:
The Court concluded that substantial compliance with the statutory form is sufficient and an election petition should not be summarily dismissed solely because the affidavit is not in the exact prescribed format. The High Court's view that the affidavit filed by the election petitioner was in substantial compliance with the prescribed format was endorsed. Defects in the affidavit are curable and do not render the election petition invalid.

3. Summary dismissal of an election petition u/s 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The Supreme Court reiterated that an election petition cannot be summarily dismissed under Section 86 of the Act for non-compliance with Section 83. The Court cited previous judgments affirming that defects in the verification of pleadings and affidavits are curable and do not attract summary dismissal under Section 86. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with Section 83 is sufficient and curable defects should not lead to dismissal.

4. Whether defects in affidavits are curable:
The Court held that defects in affidavits, such as those related to verification or format, are curable. The High Court was correct in granting the election petitioner an opportunity to cure these defects. The Court referred to past decisions indicating that curable defects should be rectified rather than leading to the dismissal of the election petition.

5. Striking out paragraphs of an election petition under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The High Court had struck off some paragraphs of the election petition that lacked material particulars and were considered vague. The Supreme Court saw no reason to disagree with the High Court's decision to strike out certain paragraphs while retaining others for trial. The objections regarding the absence of material particulars and cause of action were thus addressed appropriately.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that substantial compliance with affidavit requirements is sufficient and defects are curable. The election petition was not liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 83 or for defective affidavits, provided an opportunity to rectify the defects is given.

---