Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors. | 2026 INSC 915 | 24 August 2026
What the case was about
This appeal arose from a challenge to the 2024 Lok Sabha election result in Assam’s Karimganj parliamentary constituency. The appellant, Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, filed an Election Petition before the High Court seeking to set aside the election of the respondent, Kripanath Mallah, as the returned candidate. Rather than examine the substantive allegations, the High Court dismissed the petition outright under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, primarily because it found that the paper copies served on the winning candidate were not properly attested. Section 86 permits a court to reject an Election Petition summarily only if it does not comply with specific mandatory requirements, and the appellant argued that the defects identified fell well short of that threshold. He approached the Supreme Court asking it to set aside the dismissal and restore the petition for a hearing on the merits.
The key facts
Choudhury’s Election Petition assailed Mallah’s election from No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency. When copies of the petition were served on the respondent, three preliminary objections were raised.
First, the respondent pointed out that the served copy contained varying rubber-stamp attestations: some portions of the document carried one form of wording while other portions carried another. The respondent argued that this inconsistency meant the copies did not comply with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Second, the Form-25 affidavit that accompanies allegations of corrupt practices under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, did not contain any indication of notarization or affirmation by a Commissioner of Affidavits in the copies supplied to the respondent. It was admitted, however, that the original Form-25 filed before the High Court had indeed been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits.
Third, the respondent claimed that four pages were missing from the copy served on him.
The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 86 on the ground that the attestation was improper. It did not rule on the Form-25 notarization point, and it rejected the missing-pages objection as an afterthought. The dismissal meant that the appellant’s allegations concerning the election would never be examined on their substance.
The questions before the Court
The Supreme Court had to decide three issues:
- Whether varying rubber-stamp attestations on the copies amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3).
- Whether the absence of notarization or other attestation by a prescribed authority on the Form-25 copies supplied to the returned candidate should lead to automatic dismissal of the entire Election Petition under Section 86, or whether it was merely a defect under Section 83.
- Whether the alleged omission of four pages from the served copies was a valid ground for dismissal.
What the Court decided and why
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s dismissal, and restored the Election Petition for a decision on the merits.
Attestation under Section 81(3)
The Court held that Section 81(3) is satisfied once the petitioner signs the copy and certifies it as a true copy of the petition. “All that the provision requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the petition under his own signature, taking responsibility for the copy served to be a true copy of the original petition and no particular form of attestation is prescribed,” the bench observed (para 8). Because the different rubber stamps employed conveyed the same essential meaning, the Court reversed the High Court’s finding, concurring with the precedent in F.A. Sapa v. Singora (para 9). The Court also restated the classic test that “the word ‘copy’ in Sub-Section (3) of Section 81 does not mean an absolutely exact copy but means that the copy shall be so true that nobody can, by any possibility, misunderstand it,” and that the question is whether “the variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person” (para 23).
Form-25 and peremptory dismissal
On the Form-25 issue, the Court proceeded from the admitted position that the original affidavit filed before the High Court had been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits, and that the only shortcoming was the lack of any such indication on the copies served on the respondent. Drawing on the Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, the Court reasoned that the absence of the Commissioner’s endorsement in the served copies did not mislead the returned candidate, because the original on the court record was duly attested. At most, the flaw was a defect under the proviso to Section 83(1), not a ground for peremptory dismissal under Section 86. The Court held that “if Form-25 read with Rule 94A is not in conformity with the requirement, then those parts of the petition which contain allegations of corrupt practices alone are required to be struck off and other independent grounds, if any, are required to be tried and decided on merits. Obviously, the defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86 of the RoP Act” (para 21).
Missing pages
The Court further held that the contention regarding missing pages was rightly rejected by the High Court as an afterthought and afforded no ground for dismissal.
Final directions
The Court reversed the High Court’s order and restored the petition. It directed the High Court to verify whether the original Form-25 bears due attestation of the affirmation on oath. If the attestation is present, the petition must proceed on merits; if not, the allegations of corrupt practices must not be permitted to be urged, but any other independent grounds must still be decided on their merits (para 26). The appeal was allowed (para 27).
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies the standard for compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. By interpreting “true copy” as a functional standard rather than a demand for literal exactitude, the Court has provided guidance on when variations in attestation will not defeat an election challenge at the threshold. The judgment also draws a clear line between defects that justify summary dismissal under Section 86 and those that fall within the ambit of the proviso to Section 83(1), which may be addressed by striking out specific allegations while allowing independent grounds to proceed.
In addition, the decision reaffirms the binding authority of Constitution Bench rulings, relying on Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar to resolve the dispute rather than subsequent divergent pronouncements. For election petitioners and returned candidates alike, the judgment underscores that procedural requirements governing the service of copies are intended to ensure the respondent is adequately informed, not to create an automatic barrier to adjudication on the merits. By restoring the petition for a full hearing subject only to the High Court verifying the original Form-25 attestation, the Court has maintained the statutory mechanism through which voters and candidates can seek judicial scrutiny of electoral outcomes.