Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

To put it differently, when the Election Petition is taken up for consideration, the Court which deals with such an Election Petition, should be in a position to know in exactitude as to what is the corrupt practice alleged as against the parties without giving any room for doubt as to the nature of such allegation, the parties involved, the date, time and the place etc. so that the party against whom such allegation is made is in a position to explain or defend any such allegation without giving scope for any speculation. In that context, both Sections 83(1)(a) and (1)(b) and the proviso play a very key role since the election petitioner cannot simply raise an allegation of corrupt practice and get away with it, inasmuch as the affidavit to be filed in respect of corrupt practice should specifically support the facts pleaded, as well as, the material particulars furnished. Rule 94A of the Rules in turn stipulates that the affidavit should be in the prescribed Form 25 and should be sworn before the Magistrate of 1st class or a notary or the Commissioner of Oaths and makes it mandatory for the election petitioner to comply with the said requirement statutorily. The format of the affidavit as prescribed in Form No.25 elaborates as to the requirement of specifically mentioning the paragraphs where the statement of facts are contained and also the other paragraphs where material particulars relating to such corrupt practices are alleged. It also mentions as to which of those statement of facts and material particulars are based on the personal knowledge of the election petitioner and such of those statements and particulars that are made based on the information gained by the election petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to justify and support the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that in fact these objections were raised by the respondent in his counter-affidavit and the appellant had sufficient opportunity to have cured them and in that connection, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the election petition was presented on 22-6-2006 and the first date of hearing was on 30-8-2006. The appellant should have cured these defects but the same was not done. Therefore, there was no option with the learned Single Judge but to dismiss the election petition. We fail to appreciate this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent for the simple reason that how can the appellant who bona fidely felt that his election petition in all respects is complete will entail such a serious consequence of dismissal of the election petition on such minor omissions. In case the learned Single Judge found that the election petition was not in the format then after recording his finding, the learned Single Judge should have given an opportunity to the appellant to amend or cure certain defects pointed out by the Court. It may be relevant to [pic]mention, these are not the grounds mentioned in Section 86 of the Act for dismissal of the election petition. But nonetheless even if it is to entail serious consequence of dismissal of the election petition for not being properly constituted, then too at least the appellant should have been given an opportunity to cure these defects and put the election petition in proper format. But the learned Single Judge instead of giving an opportunity has taken the easy course to dismiss the election petition which in our opinion, was not warranted.” What has been stated in the above paragraphs is that where the defects pointed out were too innocuous and cosmetic in nature, the Election Tribunal should have given an opportunity to rectify those defects instead of throwing out the Election Petition at the very threshold. There can be no two opinions about the proposition of law so stated by this Court in the above referred to decisions. The defects which were pointed out in those cases were that the affidavit was not sworn in the prescribed format and in the verification column, certain words were missing. It was in that context that this Court held that when such innocuous mistakes in the format of the affidavit were noted, in the interest of justice, the proper course was that the Tribunal should have called upon the election petitioner to rectify those minor cosmetic defects instead of dismissing the Election Petition at the threshold.

Mr. Chacko, learned counsel then relied upon the decision in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra). In the said decision, it was held that if there is substantial compliance with the prescribed format of the affidavit, an Election Petition cannot be thrown out on a hyper technical ground particularly when there were some defects in the format which were curable. Paragraphs 37 and 38 are relevant for our consideration which are as under:

“37. A perusal of the affidavit furnished by Prasanna Kumar ex facie indicates that it was not in absolute compliance with the format affidavit. However, we endorse the view of the High Court that on a perusal of the affidavit, undoubtedly there was substantial compliance with the prescribed format. It is correct that the verification was also defective, but the defect is curable and cannot be held fatal to the maintainability of the election petition.

38. Recently, in Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy the issue of a failure to file an affidavit in accordance with the prescribed format came up for consideration. This is what this Court had to say: (SCC p. 802, para

28) “28. … The format of the affidavit is at any rate not a matter of substance. What is important and at the heart of the requirement is whether the election petitioner has made averments which are testified by him on oath, no matter in a form other than the one that is stipulated in the Rules. The absence of an affidavit or an affidavit in a form other than the one stipulated by the Rules does not by itself cause any prejudice to the successful candidate so long as the deficiency is cured by the election petitioner by filing a proper affidavit when directed to do so.” We have no reason to take a different view. The contention urged by Siddeshwar is rejected.” [pic] A reading of the above paragraphs themselves show that if the defect was one of format and not of substance, such defect should also be allowed to be cured. In the case on hand, we have already held that the defects pointed out in the Election Petition, as well as, in the affidavit were not of mere format but of substance and, therefore, we are unable to apply the ratio in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) to the case on hand.