Supreme Court Remits Contest Over Form 25 Compliance, Directs High Court To Decide If Defects Are Curable

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal challenging the High Court of Orissa’s refusal to reject an election petition for alleged defects in the affidavit required under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appeal concerned whether non-compliance with the prescribed Form 25 affidavit was a fatal defect rendering an election petition non‑maintainable at the threshold.

The Court allowed leave and held that the legal position on whether the Form 25 requirement was mandatory had been “evolved” by earlier precedents to require “substantial compliance” rather than an inflexible rule of automatic rejection. The Court found that the High Court had not recorded the factual analysis necessary to conclude that the affidavit “substantially complied” with the statutory form and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It was clarified that in cases of total and complete non-compliance with Section 83 of the RP Act, the pleading could not be regarded as an Election Petition and was liable to be rejected at the outset. Proceeding on this premise, the Court further held that although a defective affidavit may not, by itself, render an Election Petition non‑maintainable, the High Court must ensure that the defect was cured prior to the commencement of trial so as to enable the returned candidate to effectively meet the allegations and not be taken by surprise at that stage.” The Court directed the High Court to identify and enumerate the defects in the Form 25 affidavit, assess whether such defects were curable, and decide whether any supplementary affidavit had to be filed within the period of limitation or could be condoned beyond it. The Court also permitted the parties’ agreed proposal to expunge pleadings concerning a third candidate and directed consequential amendments and framing of issues by the High Court.

Background The dispute arose from the 2024 Odisha Assembly election in the 07‑Jharsuguda constituency, where the appellant was declared elected by 1,333 votes. The respondent filed an election petition in the Orissa High Court alleging (i) non‑disclosure of assets, liabilities and criminal antecedents and failure to publish particulars in a newspaper (claimed as ‘corrupt practices’), and (ii) discrepancies in EVM Control Unit Identification Numbers affecting 6,313 votes. The appellant moved to reject the petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for alleged non‑joinder, vague and vexatious pleading, defective verification and the absence of a separate Form 25 affidavit as required by the proviso to Section 83(1)(c). The High Court dismissed the rejection plea, held that the solitary affidavit on record “substantially fulfilled” the proviso and granted three weeks to file a proper Form 25 affidavit if necessary, finding triable issues. The appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedent beginning with Ravinder Singh, noted the 3‑Judge decision in G. M. Siddeshwar which endorsed a “substantial compliance” approach, and cited later decisions reiterating that defects in Form 25 may be curable. The Court observed that the High Court’s order did not specify whether the prescribed scrutiny under the High Court Rules was undertaken at presentation, did not enumerate the defects, nor explained whether the opportunity to cure was granted within the limitation period. For these reasons, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to determine (inter alia) whether the affidavit complied with Form 25 in substance, whether any defect was curable, whether a supplementary affidavit must be filed within limitation, and whether the tribunal could condone delay. The appeal was disposed of accordingly and pending applications were ordered closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. _________/2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12491/2025) Case Title: Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Maninder Singh, Learned Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Dr. Abhishekh Manu Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Learned Counsel