Election petition affidavits: no separate supporting affidavit required, and curable verification defects do not justify threshold dismissal.

An election petitioner is not required to file a separate affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) in addition to the affidavit contemplated by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, because the statute does not mandate two distinct affidavits where corrupt practice allegations are pleaded. Defects in the Form No. 25 affidavit or in verification are curable when there is substantial compliance with the prescribed requirements; such defects do not justify dismissal of the election petition at the threshold. Only total non-compliance with material requirements would warrant rejection. The election petition was therefore maintainable, and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an election petitioner is required to file a separate affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in addition to the affidavit contemplated by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether a defect in the affidavit in Form No. 25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, or a defective verification, justified dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether an election petitioner is required to file a separate affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in addition to the affidavit contemplated by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Section 83(1)(c) requires verification of the petition in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, but it does not itself impose a separate requirement of an additional affidavit in support of the pleadings. The affidavit contemplated by Order VI Rule 15(4) is distinct from verification and, on a plain reading of the election law, the statute does not mandate two separate affidavits merely because allegations of corrupt practice are pleaded. A composite affidavit may satisfy the statutory requirements where it covers both the pleadings and the allegations of corrupt practice.

Conclusion: A separate additional affidavit under Order VI Rule 15(4) was not required; the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a defect in the affidavit in Form No. 25 prescribed by Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, or a defective verification, justified dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.

Analysis: The governing scheme treats defects in verification and in the prescribed affidavit as curable where there is substantial compliance with the statutory form and the affidavit is not an integral part of the petition so as to render the petition a nullity. Section 86(1) does not provide for summary dismissal for non-compliance with Section 83 alone, and the proper course is to permit the defect to be cured. Only total and complete non-compliance with the material requirements would justify threshold rejection; a defective affidavit or verification, without more, is not fatal.

Conclusion: The affidavit and verification defects were curable and did not warrant dismissal of the election petition at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The election petition was held maintainable, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not liable to be dismissed at the threshold for curable defects in verification or in the prescribed affidavit when there is substantial compliance with Section 83, and the statute does not require a separate affidavit in addition to the affidavit on corrupt practices.

---