Case: A. MANJU Vs. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R &amp; ORS

cured. It was urged that permitting an affidavit to be filed at a later stage would provide an opportunity for embellishment of the case and defeat the statutory requirement of an affidavit. The nature of allegations made by the appellant against the respondent, it was urged, were in the nature of undisclosed profits from commercial operations through a partnership, and receipt of money from a sitting Rajya Sabha member. The allegations were made without disclosing any sources of information by way of an affidavit in Form 25. Conclusion: 19. We must begin at the inception by stating that intrinsically, election law is technical in nature. In the present matter, an election conducted under an independent body like the Election Commission is sought to be assailed, where the mandate of the public has gone in a particular way. The allegations must strictly fall within the parameters of the manner in which such a mandate can be overturned. The primary plea taken by the appellant is largely that success in the elections was obtained by concealment of material, which would have been germane in determining the opinion of the electorate. In effect, were such material to be available with the electorate, they would have exercised another option on the basis of it. However, while the requirements to be met in the election petition may be technical in nature, they are not hypertechnical, as observed in the Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) case. We have considered the aforesaid aspect by quoting the observations made therein which have received the imprimatur of a larger Bench. 20. In the conspectus of the aforesaid, if we examine the facts of the present case, the hyper-technical view sought to be taken of non-signing and verification of the index and the synopsis has been rightly rejected by the High Court. 21. Thus, the real and core question before us is that in view of the allegations of the alleged non-disclosure of assets in Form-26 by respondent No.1 being cited as corrupt practice, would it be mandatory for the election petitioner to file an affidavit in Form-25 and what would be the consequences of not filing such an affidavit. 22. We may take note of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore AIR 1964 SC 1545 : (1964) 3 SCR 573 which opined that the defect in verification of an affidavit cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioners petition summarily and such an affidavit can be permitted to be filed later. This Constitution Bench judgment was also referred to in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case to come to a conclusion that non-compliance with proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act was not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition and the defect could be remedied, i.e., even in the absence of compliance, the petition would still be called an election petition. We cannot say that the High Court fell into an error while considering the election petition as a whole to come to the conclusion that the allegations of the appellant were not confined only to Section 33A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit as undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No.1 were also pleaded as violation of the mandate under Sections 123 and 100 of the RP Act. 23. However, we are not persuaded to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the non-submission of Form 25 would lead to the dismissal of the election petition. We say so because, in our view, the observations made in Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) case which have received the imprimatur of the three Judges Bench in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case appear not to have been appreciated in the correct perspective. In fact, the G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case has been cited by the learned Judge to dismiss the petition. If we look at the election petition, the prayer clause is followed by a verification. There is also a verifying affidavit in support of the election petition. Thus, factually it would not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition, albeit not in Form 25. This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition. In fact, a consideration of both the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned Judge, i.e. Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) as well as G.M. Siddeshwar (supra), ought to have resulted in a conclusion that the correct ratio in view of these facts was to permit the appellant to cure this defect by filing an affidavit in the prescribed form. 24. The arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 were predicated on the distinction between the absence of an affidavit and a defective affidavit. This pre-supposes that for an opportunity of cure to be granted, there must be the submission of a Form 25 affidavit which may be defective. This would be very narrow reading of the provisions. Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25. We have to appreciate that the petition is at a threshold stage. It is not as if the appellant has failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so. This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is sought to be urged on behalf of respondent No.1. 25. The appellant states the case clearly and in no uncertain terms with supporting material in the election petition. Whether the violation is made out by respondent no.1 or not would be a matter of trial but certainly not a matter to be shut out at the threshold.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]19. We must begin at the inception by stating that intrinsically, election law is technical in nature. In the present matter, an election conducted under an independent body like the Election Commission is sought to be assailed, where the mandate of the public has gone in a particular way. The allegations must strictly fall within the parameters of the manner in which such a mandate can be overturned.The primary plea taken by the appellant is largely that success in the elections was obtained by concealment of material, which would have been germane in determining the opinion of the electorate.In effect, were such material to be available with the electorate, they would have exercised another option on the basis of it. However, while the requirements to be met in the election petition may be technical in nature, they are not hypertechnical, as observed in the Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) case. We have considered the aforesaid aspect by quoting the observations made therein which have received the imprimatur of a larger Bench.20. In the conspectus of the aforesaid, if we examine the facts of the present case, the hyper-technical view sought to be taken of non-signing and verification of the index and the synopsis has been rightly rejected by the High Court.22. We may take note of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore AIR 1964 SC 1545  : (1964) 3 SCR 573   which opined that the defect in verification of an affidavit cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissal of the petitioners petition summarily and such an affidavit can be permitted to be filed later. This Constitution Bench judgment was also referred to in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case to come to a conclusion that non-compliance with proviso to Section 83(1) of the RP Act was not fatal to the maintainability of an election petition and the defect could be remedied, i.e., even in the absence of compliance, the petition would still be called an election petition. We cannot say that the High Court fell into an error while considering the election petition as a whole to come to the conclusion that the allegations of the appellant were not confined only to Section 33A of the RP Act, but were larger in ambit as undue influence and improper acceptance of nomination of respondent No.1 were also pleaded as violation of the mandate under Sections 123 and 100 of the RP Act.23. However, we are not persuaded to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the non-submission of Form 25 would lead to the dismissal of the election petition. We say so because, in our view, the observations made in Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) case which have received the imprimatur of the three Judges Bench in G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case appear not to have been appreciated in the correct perspective. In fact, the G.M. Siddeshwar (supra) case has been cited by the learned Judge to dismiss the petition. If we look at the election petition, the prayer clause is followed by a verification. There is also a verifying affidavit in support of the election petition. Thus, factually it would not be appropriate to say that there is no affidavit in support of the petition, albeit not in Form 25. This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition. In fact, a consideration of both the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned Judge, i.e. Ponnala Lakshmaiah (supra) as well as G.M. Siddeshwar (supra), ought to have resulted in a conclusion that the correct ratio in view of these facts was to permit the appellant to cure this defect by filing an affidavit in the prescribed form.24. The arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 were predicated on the distinction between the absence of an affidavit and a defective affidavit. This pre-supposes that for an opportunity of cure to be granted, there must be the submission of a Form 25 affidavit which may be defective. This would be very narrow reading of the provisions. Once there is an affidavit, albeit not in Form 25, the appropriate course would be to permit an affidavit to be filed in Form 25. We have to appreciate that the petition is at a threshold stage. It is not as if the appellant has failed to cure the defect even on being pointed out so. This is not a case where the filing of an affidavit now in Form 25 would grant an opportunity for embellishment as is sought to be urged on behalf of respondent No.1.25. The appellant states the case clearly and in no uncertain terms with supporting material in the election petition. Whether the violation is made out by respondent no.1 or not would be a matter of trial but certainly not a matter to be shut out at the threshold.