“Substantial Compliance” with Form 25 Affidavits in Election Petitions – A Detailed Commentary on Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das (2025 INSC 1017)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das (2025 INSC 1017) revisits, refines and partly remodels the procedural landscape governing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). At its core, the case interrogates one question: Is an election petition fatally defective if the affidavit regarding “corrupt practices” is not in the precise pro-forma (Form 25) on the date of presentation, or can later rectification suffice?

The Court’s answer—while remanding the matter for factual scrutiny—crystallises a doctrinal midpoint: an affidavit that exhibits “substantial compliance” with Form 25 is not per se fatal, yet courts must clearly record what exactly constitutes that compliance or defect, when it can be cured, and whether limitation bars late correction.

2. Background of the Case

Election & Parties: Both appellant Tankadhar Tripathy and respondent Dipali Das contested the 2024 Odisha Assembly elections from the 07-Jharsuguda constituency. Tripathy won by 1,333 votes.
Election Petition: Das filed ELPET No. 7/2024 alleging:
- (i) Non-disclosure of assets, liabilities and criminal cases by Tripathy & failure to publish criminal antecedents—amounting to “corrupt practices” (Section 123 RP Act).
- (ii) Discrepancies in EVM Control Unit IDs affecting 6,313 votes.
Objections by Tripathy: Invoked Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection citing, inter alia, (a) non-joinder, (b) vague pleadings, (c) lack of a proper Form 25 affidavit.
High Court (Impugned Order dated 21-03-2025): Declined to reject the petition; ruled that the existing affidavit “substantially complied” with Form 25 and granted three weeks for filing a corrected affidavit.
Supreme Court Appeal: Tripathy challenged the HC’s refusal to dismiss at the threshold.

3. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court (Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.) allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the High Court to:

Identify specific defects in the affidavit vis-à-vis Form 25.
Decide whether those defects amount to substantial compliance or total non-compliance.
Rule whether correction can be permitted outside the limitation period and, if so, under what power.
Delete mutually agreed portions of pleadings relating to a third candidate.

The Court reaffirmed that: “Non-compliance with Section 83(1)(c) is curable provided there is substantial compliance; outright dismissal is justified only where the affidavit is totally absent or worthless.”

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited

Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh (2000) 8 SCC 191
- Took a strict view: missing/defective Form 25 affidavit is fatal.
- Used by Tripathy to argue for threshold dismissal.
G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776
- Shifted to a liberal “substantial compliance” approach.
- Held defects curable but endorsed dismissal for total non-compliance.
A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna (2022) 3 SCC 269 | THANGJAM ARUNKUMAR v. YUMKHAM ERABOT SINGH (2023) 17 SCC 500
- Affidavit requirement is directory, not mandatory; curable if essence captured.
- Court must allow rectification before trial.

Collectively, these judgments sketch a spectrum. Ravinder Singh anchors the strict end, Siddeshwar the middle, and Manju/Arunkumar the more forgiving terminus. The present verdict aligns closer to the latter two but insists on a reasoned determination of compliance.

4.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Statutory Framework:
- Section 83(1)(c) RP Act + Proviso → affidavit in prescribed Form 25 for “corrupt practices”.
- Rule 94-A Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 → textual template of Form 25.
- Section 86 RP Act → grounds on which HC must dismiss at the outset (restrictive list: non-compliance with ss. 81, 82 or 117). Section 83 notably omitted.
Role of High Court Rules: Odisha HC Chapter XXXIII, Rules 7 & 21 impose a scrutiny stage by the Stamp Reporter and empower the assigned Judge to direct curing of defects.
Substantial vs. Total Non-Compliance:
- Total non-compliance = no affidavit or one entirely unrelated to corrupt-practice allegations → petition not maintainable.
- Substantial compliance = affidavit covers facts, belief, verification but perhaps wrong label, imperfect language, missing paragraph numbers, etc. → curable.
Temporal Dimension: Judgment flags a gray area: must rectification occur within the 45-day limitation for filing an election petition? The Court does not give a final answer but instructs the HC to decide, hinting that condonation may be possible.
Procedural Discipline: Remand emphasises that courts must record:
- What defects exist.
- Whether they impede the respondent’s right to an effective defence.
- Whether allowing correction would prejudice the returned candidate.

4.3 Potential Impact on Electoral Jurisprudence

Greater Clarity for High Courts: Mandates a structured scrutiny order, reducing ad-hoc findings of “substantial compliance”.
Balancing Access & Finality: Curtails frivolous rejections while protecting returned candidates from “moving target” pleadings.
Limitation Question Spotlighted: Future benches may now decide whether belated affidavits can be condoned; this verdict sets the stage but leaves the decisive ruling open.
Litigation Strategy: Petitioners will likely file meticulously prepared Form 25 affidavits ab initio to avoid mini-trials on compliance; respondents will still challenge but must show total absence or serious prejudice.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Affidavit in Form 25: A sworn statement—structured in a prescribed template—detailing every allegation of corrupt practice, the material facts supporting it, and the source of the petitioner’s belief.
Substantial Compliance: Doing enough to fulfil the substance or essence of a legal requirement even if minor technicalities are missing. It is the opposite of “strict compliance” but more than mere cosmetic conformity.
Corrupt Practices (Section 123 RP Act): Specific electoral wrongs (e.g., bribery, undue influence, false statements, misuse of governmental machinery). If proven, they can void the election and potentially disqualify the candidate.
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: A civil-procedure filter allowing courts to reject plaints (or election petitions) at the threshold if they disclose no cause of action, are barred by law, or lack necessary particulars.
Stamp Reporter (HC Rules): A designated registry officer who checks if pleadings comply with statutory and court-rule requirements (court fees, formatting, affidavits, limitation).

6. Conclusion

Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das does not pronounce the final word on the disputed election itself; instead, it refines a pivotal procedural doctrine. The Court:

Confirms that “substantial compliance” with Form 25 is the correct touchstone, overruling a rigid application of Ravinder Singh without naming it.
Insists on reasoned, itemised scrutiny of affidavits by High Courts—closing the gap between theory (liberal approach) and practice (unstructured orders).
Leaves open, but foregrounds, the question of limitation versus curability, inviting a larger or constitution bench if divergence persists.
Promotes procedural fairness: returned candidates must not be blindsided, yet genuine challengers should not be non-suited on hyper-technical grounds.

Going forward, the decision will likely be cited whenever election petitions face preliminary objections on affidavit defects. Its nuanced guidance ensures that electoral justice remains accessible without sacrificing procedural integrity—a delicate balance crucial in a vibrant democracy.