Typographical Errors in Affidavits: An Indian Judicial Perspective

The Legal Conundrum of Typographical Errors in Affidavits: An Indian Judicial Perspective

Introduction

An affidavit, a sworn statement of facts made voluntarily by an individual (the deponent) under oath or affirmation administered by a person legally authorized to do so, forms a cornerstone of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings in India. Its significance is underscored by provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)[1], the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Oaths Act, 1969. Given their evidentiary value and the solemnity attached to them, the accuracy and truthfulness of affidavits are paramount. However, human fallibility can lead to errors, including typographical mistakes. This article delves into the legal treatment of typographical errors in affidavits within the Indian judicial system, analyzing how courts balance the need for procedural propriety with the overarching goal of substantive justice. It examines the judicial definition of "typographical error," the criteria for allowing rectification, and the limitations thereof, drawing upon key precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

The Nature and Significance of Affidavits in Indian Law

Affidavits serve as a formal means of presenting factual evidence before a court or authority. Order XIX of the CPC empowers courts to order any point to be proved by affidavit.[1] The deponent attests to the veracity of the contents, understanding that a false statement can attract penal consequences under sections 191, 192, 193, and 199 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for perjury or furnishing false evidence.[2] The Orissa High Court in Thabir Sagar v. State Of Odisha Opposite Party emphasized that an affidavit is a "pledge one's faith" and its contents should reflect the personal knowledge of the deponent, confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove.[3]

The formal requirements for affidavits, including proper verification and attestation by an Oath Commissioner or Notary, are crucial. The Karnataka High Court in V.R Kamath v. Divisional Controller stressed that courts will not act on defective affidavits not attested in the manner required by law, though it allowed rectification in that instance.[4] Similarly, defects in affirmation by a Notary, if minor and bona fide, may not invalidate an affidavit, as held by the Supreme Court in Umesh Challiyill v. K.P Rajendran.[5]

Defining "Typographical Error" in Legal Parlance

The term "typographical error" is central to the discourse on rectifying mistakes in affidavits. The Supreme Court, in J. Samuel And Others v. Gattu Mahesh And Others, provided a crucial definition: "The term 'typographical error' is defined as a mistake made in the printed/typed material during a printing/typing process. The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but usually excludes errors of ignorance."[6] The Court further clarified that neglecting to perform an action one is obligated to do, or an omission of a mandatory requirement running into several sentences, cannot be classified as a typographical error, especially if it indicates a lack of due diligence.[6]

This definition distinguishes bona fide typographical slips from more substantive errors arising from negligence, ignorance, or deliberate misstatement. For instance, in Fahimur Rahman Siddiqui v. Union Of India, an applicant for a license inadvertently mentioned in an affidavit that he was married when he was a bachelor, which was presented as a typographical error affecting his eligibility.[7]

Judicial Scrutiny and Rectification of Typographical Errors

Indian courts generally adopt a pragmatic approach, allowing corrections of minor typographical errors while safeguarding against abuse of this leniency. The underlying principle, often invoked, is that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be used to defeat it.[8]

Permissibility of Correction

Courts are often inclined to permit the rectification of genuine typographical errors that do not alter the substance of the affidavit or prejudice the opposing party. In Rameshwar Dayal Arale v. Munna Singh Bhadoria And Others, the Madhya Pradesh High Court regarded corrections like substituting "Annexures" for "Schedule" and interpolating "knowledge and" as "insignificant and minimal mistakes" not likely to mislead or prejudice the respondent.[9] Similarly, the Supreme Court in Umesh Challiyill v. K.P Rajendran considered a defect in the notary's certification a "bona fide mistake" of a "very minor nature" that did not go to the root of the matter.[5]

The Calcutta High Court in Smriti Das v. Bodhisatwa Srimany allowed a typographical error in an affidavit of evidence (incorrect premises number) to be overlooked as other pleadings were consistent and the respondent was not misled.[10] The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in DR. POONAM MAKHIJA v. SENIOR-DIVISIONAL-MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, permitted correction of a typographical error in the array of parties as no prejudice was caused.[11] The Supreme Court in G.N Nayak v. Goa University And Others accepted a Registrar's affidavit correcting a typographical error in a Selection Committee report which wrongly stated a member was absent.[12] The Gujarat High Court in Mahomad Hanif Alumiya Malek v. K V Patel Industrial Training Institute & 1 also noted leave being granted to amend a typographical error in an affidavit in reply.[13]

The inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC can be invoked to allow such corrections, as observed by the Gauhati High Court in Bankim Behari Das v. Md. Hasen Ali And Ors., emphasizing that procedure should advance justice.[8] This aligns with the broader principle articulated in cases like Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh And Another, where the Supreme Court held that procedural defects are generally rectifiable if not deliberate and amendable without prejudice.[14]

Limitations on Rectification

The judiciary's flexibility has well-defined limits. Rectification is typically denied where the error is substantial, indicates a lack of due diligence, alters the core meaning, or amounts to withdrawing an admission.

The Supreme Court in J. Samuel And Others v. Gattu Mahesh And Others firmly stated that an omission of a mandatory requirement due to lack of due diligence cannot be excused as a typographical error. The Court observed, "had the person who prepared the plaint, signed and verified the plaint showed some attention, this omission could have been noticed and rectified there itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered to..."[6]

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajan Pawa And Another Petitioners v. Sheela Bhatia refused to allow amendments to an affidavit (tendered as examination-in-chief) that would change the sense of the statements (e.g., 'street' to 'streets', changing Khasra numbers, 'other' to 'southern'), stating such changes were not mere rectifications.[15] More recently, the Madras High Court in D.Prabhu v. J.Shanmugapriya, relying on Supreme Court precedent, disallowed an amendment sought to correct an alleged typographical error in an affidavit that effectively amounted to withdrawing a clear admission regarding possession of articles.[16]

Furthermore, where precision is of vital importance, courts are reluctant to treat omissions or errors lightly. In preventive detention cases under COFEPOSA, the omission of the words "continued detention" in the Advisory Board's opinion was held not to be a mere clerical or typographical error due to its critical legal significance (Satar Habib Hamdani v. K.S Dilipsinhji And Others[17]; M.P.M Aiysha Beevi v. State And Others[18]). Carelessness in drafting affidavits, leading to incorrect assertions, has also invited judicial disapproval, as seen in Ram Rup Pandey v. B.K. Bhargava, where the explanation for an admitted incorrect statement in an affidavit was found unsatisfactory.[19]

In specific contexts like election petitions, strict compliance with procedural requirements, including affidavits, is often insisted upon. The Supreme Court in P.A Mohammed Riyas v. M.K Raghavan And Others upheld the dismissal of an election petition for failure to file the requisite affidavit in the prescribed form, emphasizing that such procedural mandates are crucial.[20] Defects in copies of affidavits served on the opposing party, such as missing attestation details, can also be problematic, as highlighted in Shri Anil Umrao Gote v. Shri Rajwardhan Raghujirao Kadambonde Rajubaba.[21]

The "Prejudice" and "Materiality" Tests

A significant factor in the court's decision to allow or disallow correction of a typographical error is whether the error is material and whether it causes prejudice to the opposing party. If the error is minor, does not alter the fundamental nature of the averments, and does not mislead or disadvantage the other side, courts are more likely to permit its rectification.[9][10] Conversely, if the error is material to the case or its correction would prejudice the other party's rights or defense, permission is usually denied.

Procedural Implications and Best Practices

The judicial pronouncements underscore the duty of care incumbent upon deponents, their legal counsel, and attesting authorities (Oath Commissioners/Notaries). As observed in J. Samuel, due diligence in preparing, signing, and verifying affidavits is expected.[6] The role of Oath Commissioners and Notaries in ensuring proper attestation and maintaining records, as mandated by rules, is also critical for the sanctity of affidavits.[4]

Failure to rectify material errors, or the presence of unrectifiable errors, can have serious consequences, ranging from the affidavit being disregarded to adverse inferences being drawn, and in cases of deliberate falsehood, potential penal action.[2]

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary navigates the issue of typographical errors in affidavits with a balanced approach, striving to uphold procedural integrity without sacrificing substantive justice. While bona fide, minor typographical slips that do not cause prejudice or alter the core substance of the statement are generally rectifiable, the courts draw a firm line against attempts to pass off negligence, substantial alterations, or withdrawal of admissions as mere typographical errors. The "due diligence" standard, the materiality of the error, and the potential for prejudice to the opposing party are key considerations. The consistent message from the judiciary is that while procedure is a handmaid to justice, the sanctity of sworn statements demands utmost care and truthfulness from all involved in their creation and submission. This nuanced stance ensures that affidavits remain reliable instruments of evidence, fostering public confidence in the administration of justice.

References

  1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XIX.
  2. Kamla Sharma And Others v. Sukhdevlal And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2022), citing Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh AIR 1967 SC 68 regarding offences under Ss. 191, 192, 199 IPC.
  3. Thabir Sagar v. State Of Odisha Opposite Party. (Orissa High Court, 2021).
  4. V.R Kamath v. Divisional Controller (Karnataka High Court, 1997).
  5. Umesh Challiyill v. K.P Rajendran . (Supreme Court Of India, 2008).
  6. J. Samuel And Others v. Gattu Mahesh And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2012).
  7. Fahimur Rahman Siddiqui v. Union Of India Through Principal Secretary, Petroleum And Natural Gas Commission, New Delhi And Others (Allahabad High Court, 2006).
  8. Bankim Behari Das v. Md. Hasen Ali And Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2010), citing Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869.
  9. Rameshwar Dayal Arale v. Munna Singh Bhadoria And Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1991).
  10. Smriti Das v. Bodhisatwa Srimany (Calcutta High Court, 2015).
  11. DR. POONAM MAKHIJA v. SENIOR-DIVISIONAL-MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (2023 SCC ONLINE NCDRC 7, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2023).
  12. G.N Nayak v. Goa University And Others (2002 SCC 2 712, Supreme Court Of India, 2002).
  13. Mahomad Hanif Alumiya Malek Petitioner(S) v. K V Patel Industrial Training Institute & 1 (S) (2010 SCC ONLINE GUJ 9784, Gujarat High Court, 2010).
  14. Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh And Another (2006 SCC 1 75, Supreme Court Of India, 2005).
  15. Rajan Pawa And Another Petitioners v. Sheela Bhatia (Deceased) Through Her Lrs. (Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2014).
  16. D.Prabhu v. J.Shanmugapriya (Madras High Court, 2024), citing Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr., Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022.
  17. Satar Habib Hamdani v. K.S Dilipsinhji And Others (1986 SCC 1 544, Supreme Court Of India, 1985).
  18. M.P.M Aiysha Beevi v. State And Others (1991 SCC ONLINE KER 160, Kerala High Court, 1991).
  19. Ram Rup Pandey v. B.K. Bhargava (Allahabad High Court, 1970).
  20. P.A Mohammed Riyas v. M.K Raghavan And Others (2012 SCC 5 511, Supreme Court Of India, 2012).
  21. Shri Anil Umrao Gote v. Shri Rajwardhan Raghujirao Kadambonde Rajubaba . (Bombay High Court, 1995).