Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said there is no requirement under the Representation of People Act to file a separate and independent affidavit by an election petitioner averring alleged corrupt practices by a returned candidate, if the plea itself is accompanied by a statement sworn on oath.

"The position of law...is clear. The requirement to file an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the RP Act is not mandatory. It is sufficient if there is substantial compliance. As the defect is curable, an opportunity may be granted to file the necessary affidavit," a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said.

The BJP MLA Thangjam Arun Kumar wom Wangkhei Assembly Constituency. His election was challenged by Yumkham Erabot Singh and others alleging violations under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 84 read with Sections 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 

The election petitioner sought a declaration that the election of the appellant be held void and also to declare him to be the elected candidate. His petition alleged corrupt practice by the returned candidate for he has not provided the material particulars with respect to a financial transaction relating to financing a loan.

The appellant sought dismissal of the election petition on the grounds including that an affidavit was mandatory, as the election petition raised allegations of corrupt practice.

The High Court, however, held the alleged non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the Act is incorrect as the election petitioner had effectively attested the election petition. 

In his submission, the appellant contended that the election petition must fail for not filing the additional affidavit in support of the allegation of corrupt practice. He relied upon proviso which requires that in cases of corrupt practice, “the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit”. 

In the instant case, the bench, however, pointed out the election petition contained on affidavit and also a verification. 

"In this very affidavit, the election petitioner has sworn on oath that the paragraphs where he has raised allegations of corrupt practice are true to the best of his knowledge. Though there is no separate and an independent affidavit with respect to the allegations of corrupt practice, there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act," the bench said. 

The bench expressed its agreement with the conclusion of the High Court that there is substantial compliance of the requirements under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act and this finding satisfied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in G M Siddeshwar v Prasanna Kumar (2013), and A Manju v Prajwal Revanna (2022).

Case Title: Thangjam Arunkumar Vs Yumkhan Erobat Singh & Ors.

 

Click here to read judgment