LAW UNITED · SUPREME COURT DESKREPORTABLE
2026-08-24 — Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors.
Published 8 October 20269 min readAutomatically processed
Election Law
Civil Procedure
The Supreme Court restored Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury’s challenge to Kripanath Mallah’s 2024 election from Karimganj, holding that the true-copy stamps satisfied Section 81(3) and that a defect in the served Form 25 affidavit does not automatically justify dismissal of the entire election petition.
CASE DETAILS
CaseHafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors.
Neutral citation2026 INSC 915
Case numbersCivil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025
Diary numbersDiary No. 23724/2025
Judgment date2026-08-24
CourtSupreme Court of India
JurisdictionCivil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case typeElection appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951
PlaceNew Delhi
DispositionAppeal allowed; the Gauhati High Court order rejecting the election petition was reversed and the election petition restored for conditional verification of the original Form 25 and further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
BENCH
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran. Opinion authored by: Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD
- Section 81(3) did not require a particular formula of attestation: the stamps “attested to be true copy” and “certified to be true copy”, coupled with the election petitioner’s signature, conveyed the same essential certification and satisfied the statutory requirement. [1] (paras paras 8-9; PDF pp. PDF pp. 5-6)
- A defect in the copy of the Form 25 affidavit does not, by itself, require peremptory dismissal of the entire election petition under Section 86; at most, a failure to comply with the affidavit requirement can disable the corrupt-practice allegations while leaving independent grounds to be tried. [1] (paras paras 21-25; PDF pp. PDF pp. 11-14)
- The High Court’s rejection order was reversed and the election petition restored. The High Court must verify whether the original Form 25 carries due attestation of the affirmation on oath; if it does, the petition proceeds on merits, and if it does not, the corrupt-practice allegations cannot be urged but any other pleaded grounds must still be considered. [1] (paras paras 26-27; PDF pp. PDF pp. 14-15)
BACKGROUND
- The appeal arose from an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency, Assam, in the 2024 general election to the Lok Sabha. [1] (paras para 1; PDF pp. PDF p. 1)
- The returned candidate raised three threshold objections: the served copy of the Form 25 affidavit did not show notarisation or attestation; different true-copy stamps were used on different pages; and four pages were said to be missing. [1] (paras para 3; PDF pp. PDF p. 2)
Procedural history
- On 4 April 2025, the Gauhati High Court allowed I.A.(Civil) No. 3340/2024 in Election Petition No. 1/2024 and rejected the election petition at the threshold under Section 86; the Supreme Court record notes that the High Court treated the attestation as defective and rejected the missing-pages objection. [1] [6] (paras paras 1, 4; PDF pp. PDF pp. 1, 2-3)
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the use of different true-copy stamps on different portions of the served election petition failed the attestation requirement in Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [1] (paras paras 3(ii), 5, 8-9; PDF pp. PDF pp. 2-3, 5-6)
- Whether the absence, on the served copy of Form 25, of an indication that the affidavit had been sworn or affirmed before the prescribed authority required dismissal of the entire election petition. [1] (paras paras 3(i), 10-13, 21; PDF pp. PDF pp. 2, 6-8, 11-12)
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury
- The appellant argued that Section 81(3) prescribes no particular form of attestation and that a signed certification taking responsibility for the copy as a true copy is sufficient, relying on F.A. Sapa. [1] (paras para 5; PDF pp. PDF p. 3)
- The appellant further submitted that Section 86 mandates threshold dismissal only for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117, and that any defect concerning the Form 25 copy falls under the proviso to Section 83 rather than Section 81. [1] (paras para 5; PDF pp. PDF p. 3)
Kripanath Mallah & Ors.
The respondent argued that the Form 25 copy contained nothing indicating attestation in the prescribed manner, that Dr Shipra therefore applied, and that the defect was sufficiently serious to justify threshold rejection. [1] (paras para 6; PDF pp. PDF p. 4)
COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING
Section 81(3) Attestation
- Following F.A. Sapa, the Court reasoned that the statute does not prescribe ritual words or a particular form of attestation; the petitioner’s signed responsibility for the copy being true is what matters. [1] (paras paras 8-9; PDF pp. PDF pp. 5-6)
Form 25 and the Dr Shipra Line of Cases
- The Court found the present served copies materially comparable to Dr Shipra because they showed no indication that the affidavit had been attested, unlike T.M. Jacob where the copy stated that it had been affirmed and verified before a notary and bore “sd/- Notary” even though the notary’s identifying particulars and seal were absent. [1] (paras paras 13-16; PDF pp. PDF pp. 7-10)
- Crucially, Dr Shipra itself did not support dismissal of all claims merely because Form 25 was defective: its concluding treatment required only the corrupt-practice portions to be struck, leaving independent grounds for trial. [1] (paras para 21; PDF pp. PDF pp. 11-12)
Murarka and Larger-Bench Precedent
- Murarka also treated “copy” in Section 81(3) functionally rather than mechanically: the question is whether the copy is true enough that the variation would not mislead an ordinary person. [1] (paras para 23; PDF pp. PDF p. 13)
- Because Murarka is an earlier Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court treated it as controlling over contrary three-judge decisions, invoking the larger-bench rule stated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. [1] (paras para 25; PDF pp. PDF p. 14)
Consequence in the Present Case
- The consequence is conditional: verified attestation permits the case to proceed on merits; absence of due attestation bars the corrupt-practice allegations, but does not extinguish any other pleaded grounds. [1] (paras para 26; PDF pp. PDF p. 15)
RATIO DECIDENDI
- Non-conformity of the Form 25 affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1) and Rule 94A does not automatically attract Section 86 dismissal of the whole election petition; the legally proper consequence is confined to the corrupt-practice allegations unless there is an independent defect under Sections 81, 82 or 117. [1] (paras paras 21-25; PDF pp. PDF pp. 11-14)
- When the original affidavit may contain the prescribed affirmation but the served copy omits it, the High Court must verify the original; if due affirmation exists the matter proceeds, and if it does not the corrupt-practice allegations are excluded while independent grounds remain triable. [1] (paras paras 24-26; PDF pp. PDF pp. 13-15)
OBITER / IMPORTANT CASE-SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS
No separate material obiter was isolated. The discussion of precedent hierarchy and the distinction between Section 81 and Section 83 defects was integral to resolving the threshold dismissal and framing the remand directions.
FINAL RULING AND DIRECTIONS
- The appeal is allowed and the Gauhati High Court’s order rejecting the election petition is reversed. [1] (paras paras 26-27; PDF pp. PDF pp. 14-15)
- The election petition is restored to the files of the Gauhati High Court. [1] (paras para 26; PDF pp. PDF p. 15)
- The High Court must verify the original Form 25: if due attestation of the affirmation on oath is present, it shall proceed on the merits; if it is absent, the corrupt-practice allegations shall not be permitted, but other pleaded grounds shall continue to be considered. [1] (paras para 26; PDF pp. PDF pp. 14-15)
- Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. [1] (paras para 28; PDF pp. PDF p. 15)
STATUTES INVOLVED
| Instrument | Provisions | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Representation of the People Act, 1951 | Section 81(3), Section 83(1)(c) and proviso, Section 86(1), Section 116A | Section 81(3) governs service copies and petitioner attestation; Section 83 governs contents and the affidavit supporting corrupt-practice allegations; Section 86 prescribes threshold dismissal for non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117; Section 116A provides the appeal route to the Supreme Court. [1] [3] |
| Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 | Rule 94A, Form 25 | Rule 94A requires the affidavit referred to in the proviso to Section 83(1) to be sworn before a first-class magistrate, notary or commissioner of oaths and to be in Form 25; Form 25 contains the prescribed affirmation and attestation block. [1] [4] |
KEY PRECEDENTS AND THEIR TREATMENT
| Precedent & Citation | Treatment | Principle/Application |
|---|---|---|
| F.A. Sapa v. Singora, (1991) 3 SCC 375 | followed | Followed: Section 81(3) prescribes no ritual formula; the petitioner’s signed certification that a served copy is true is sufficient. [1] |
| Dr Shipra (Smt) and Others v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 181 | applied | Applied to the absent Form 25 attestation indication, while noting that its own conclusion preserves independent non-corrupt-practice grounds. [1] |
| T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and Others, (1999) 4 SCC 274 | distinguished | Distinguished: the served copy there showed affirmation before a notary and “sd/- Notary”; Dr Shipra was distinguished, not overruled. [1] |
| T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 358 | not_applied | Not applied because it misread Dr Shipra and T.M. Jacob on the nature and consequence of the served-copy defect. [1] |
| Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore and Others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 129 | binding_followed | Binding Constitution Bench authority: Section 83 verification defects are not automatically fatal, and Section 81(3) copy variations matter when they mislead. [1] |
| National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 | relied_on | Relied on for the rule that a larger-bench precedent governs over a contrary smaller-bench decision. [1] |
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
- The judgment reinforces that election-law procedural requirements remain strict, especially for corrupt-practice allegations, but separates strict compliance from the distinct question of whether a defect is one that Section 86 authorises a High Court to punish by dismissing the entire petition. [1] [3] [4] (paras paras 21-26; PDF pp. PDF pp. 11-15)
PRACTICAL IMPACT — EDITORIAL ANALYSIS
- For election-petition practitioners, the safest course remains to reproduce the Form 25 affirmation and prescribed attestation clearly in every served copy, even though this judgment rejects automatic dismissal of the entire petition for an omission in the copy. [1] [4] (paras paras 10, 21-26; PDF pp. PDF pp. 6, 11-15)
SOURCE CITATIONS & ILI-STYLE BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors., 2026 INSC 915 (SC, 24 Aug. 2026). Open source
[2] Supreme Court of India, Judgments Listing, C.A. No. 7474/2025, Diary No. 23724/2025 (24 Aug. 2026).
[3] Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 81, 83, 86 & 116A. Open source
[4] Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, r. 94A & Form 25. Open source
[5] Gursimran Kaur Bakshi, “Supreme Court Restores Congress Candidate's Petition Challenging BJP MP's Election From Assam”, LiveLaw, 24 Aug. 2026. Open source
[6] Kripanath Mallah v. Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, I.A.(Civil) No. 3340/2024 in El. Pet. No. 1/2024 (Gauhati HC, 4 Apr. 2025). Open source