Introduction

The case of A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna Alias Prajwal R. And Others (2021 INSC 881) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on December 13, 2021, addresses a pivotal issue in election law concerning the procedural requirements for filing an election petition. The appellant, A. Manju, contested the election of Prajwal Revanna, alleging corrupt practices. The central dispute revolved around whether the absence of an affidavit in Form 25, as mandated under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, justified the dismissal of the petition at the threshold. The Supreme Court's decision has significant implications for the procedural rigor and substantive evaluation of election petitions in India.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, A. Manju, contested the election results of the 2019 parliamentary elections for the 16 Hassan (General) Constituency, alleging that the elected candidate, Prajwal Revanna, filed a false affidavit, thereby engaging in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act). The respondent sought to dismiss the petition at the preliminary stage, citing non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the absence of an affidavit in Form 25 as required under Section 83(1) of the RP Act.

The High Court had dismissed the petition, adhering strictly to the procedural non-compliance. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that the omission of Form 25 did not warrant an outright dismissal of the petition. Instead, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to rectify the procedural defect by submitting the requisite affidavit within a specified timeframe. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities, especially in matters of electoral integrity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to establish the framework for its decision:

• Sharif-ud-din v. Abdul Gani Lone: Highlighted the mandatory nature of procedural compliance in election petitions.
• B.R. Patil v. Rajeev Chandrashekar & Ors. and Purushottam v. Returning Officer, Amravati & Ors.: These cases underscored the necessity of adhering to prescribed forms and affidavits when alleging corrupt practices.
• Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors. and G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar: Emphasized that not all procedural defects lead to dismissal and introduced the principle that curable defects should be rectified rather than dismissed summarily.
• Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore: Asserted that defects in verification of affidavits should not automatically result in dismissal.
• Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar v. Sukh Darshan Singh: Reinforced that non-compliance with certain sections of the RP Act does not necessarily lead to the dismissal of an election petition.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the procedural requirements under the RP Act, particularly focusing on Section 83, which delineates the contents of an election petition. The central issue was whether the absence of an affidavit in Form 25, as mandated for allegations of corrupt practices, was fatal to the petition's admissibility under Section 86.

The High Court had interpreted the non-submission of Form 25 as a total non-compliance, thereby justifying the dismissal of the petition at the threshold. However, the Supreme Court deviated from this interpretation, arguing that such procedural lapses should not impede the substantive examination of the allegations unless they render the petition fundamentally flawed.

The Court highlighted that election petitions inherently deal with significant public interests and that strict procedural adherence should not overshadow the pursuit of justice. By allowing the appellant an opportunity to submit the missing affidavit, the Supreme Court ensured that genuine claims of electoral malpractices could be adequately examined.

Impact

This landmark judgment ushers in a more balanced approach towards the adjudication of election petitions in India. By prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities, the Supreme Court empowers petitioners to rectify minor defects without facing premature dismissals. This not only streamlines the electoral dispute resolution process but also safeguards the integrity of the electoral mandate by ensuring that substantial grievances are thoroughly investigated.

Moreover, this decision sets a precedent for lower courts to adopt a more flexible stance regarding procedural compliance, thereby fostering a judicial environment that emphasizes fairness and thoroughness over rigidity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Form 25 Affidavit

Form 25 is a prescribed affidavit that election petitioners must submit when alleging corrupt practices under the RP Act. It serves as a sworn statement supporting the claims made in the petition, providing necessary details and evidence of the alleged malpractices.

Section 83 of the RP Act

Section 83 outlines the mandatory content of an election petition, including a concise statement of material facts, detailed particulars of any corrupt practices alleged, and the requirement for verification through affidavits. Compliance with this section is crucial for the admissibility of a petition.

Corrupt Practices under the RP Act

The RP Act enumerates various forms of corrupt practices that can influence electoral outcomes, including the filing of false affidavits, non-disclosure of assets, undue influence, and improper acceptance of nominations. These practices undermine the electoral process's integrity and are subject to legal scrutiny and penalties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna marks a pivotal moment in the adjudication of election petitions in India. By allowing the amendment of procedural defects post-filing, the Court strikes a balance between rigorous legal compliance and the fundamental pursuit of electoral justice. This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that the electoral process remains fair and transparent, free from undue technical impediments that could obstruct the legitimate contestation of electoral outcomes. Moving forward, this precedent will guide courts to adopt a more nuanced approach, fostering an environment where substantive merits take precedence over procedural formalities in the quest for electoral integrity.