The Supreme Court on August 24, 2026, set aside the dismissal of an election petition concerning the 2024 Lok Sabha election from Assam’s No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held that differences in attestation stamps on petition copies were not enough to reject the election challenge.
The Court also examined the absence of visible notarisation on the copy of the Form-25 affidavit supplied to the returned candidate.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose after the High Court rejected the election petition under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The challenge related to the election of Kripanath Mallah from Karimganj in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.
Three objections had been raised against the petition. It was argued that the Form-25 affidavit copy did not show notarisation, that different attestation stamps had been used on different pages, and that four pages were missing from the copy served on the respondent.
The High Court accepted the objection concerning attestation but rejected the argument regarding the missing pages.Supreme Court's Observation on Attestation
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's approach regarding the different stamps. Referring to its earlier decision in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, the Court said that Section 81(3) requires the petitioner to attest the copies under their own signature as true copies. The law does not prescribe one particular form of wording for that attestation.
The Bench observed:
“We respectfully concur with the findings in F.A. Sapa and reverse the finding to the contrary in the impugned judgment since the different rubber stamps employed convey the same meaning.”
The Court also upheld the High Court's finding that the allegation about missing pages was an afterthought.
Form-25 Affidavit and Earlier Judgments
The Court then considered the Form-25 issue. It noted that the affidavit must be affirmed before a First-Class Magistrate, Notary or Commissioner of Oaths. However, in the present case, the original Form-25 affidavit available before the Court had been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits.
The Bench examined earlier decisions including Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose and T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian. It clarified that Dr. Shipra had not been overruled by the Constitution Bench decision in T.M. Jacob.
The Court further relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore, holding that a defect in verification is not necessarily fatal where the copy does not mislead the other side.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the election petition to its file. It directed the High Court to verify whether the original Form-25 affidavit contained proper attestation.
If the required attestation is available in the original, the High Court must proceed with the election petition on merits. If it is not available, allegations concerning corrupt practices cannot be pursued, but any other independent grounds in the election petition must still be considered on their merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: August 24, 2026
