Supreme Court: Restores Kripanath Mallah Election Petition

• The Supreme Court recently reinstated an election petition challenging BJP MP Kripanath Mallah's 2024 Lok Sabha victory.
• Congress candidate Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury had alleged corrupt practices in the Assam constituency.
• The Gauhati High Court had dismissed the petition in April 2025 due to a defect in a Form 25 affidavit, without examining the merits.
• The Supreme Court, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, ruled that the affidavit defect was not fatal and did not justify dismissal.
• This decision underscores that minor procedural omissions, particularly concerning Form 25 affidavits, may not warrant the peremptory dismissal of election challenges.

The apex court emphasized that the identified procedural flaw, specifically concerning the Form 25 affidavit, was not a fatal defect that could justify the outright dismissal of the entire election petition.

The Supreme Court recently overturned the Gauhati High Court's dismissal of an election petition that contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election victory of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Kripanath Mallah. This significant ruling allows the challenge, originally filed by Congress candidate and Senior Advocate Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, to proceed.

Choudhury's petition alleged that Mallah engaged in corrupt practices to secure his win from Assam's Karimganj parliamentary constituency. However, the Gauhati High Court had previously dismissed the petition in April 2025, citing certain procedural defects without delving into the substantive allegations. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, heard Choudhury's appeal against this earlier decision.

The Gauhati High Court's decision to dismiss the election petition stemmed from a specific procedural flaw related to a Form 25 affidavit. This affidavit had been submitted by Choudhury to support his claims of corrupt practices against Mallah. While the original Form 25 affidavit present in the High Court's records was duly affirmed before a commissioner of affidavits, a critical omission was noted.

Crucially, the copy of the affidavit that was served to Kripanath Mallah, the respondent, did not bear any endorsement indicating such affirmation. It was this discrepancy in the served copy that led the High Court to conclude that the petition was defective and warranted dismissal, thereby preventing any examination of the merits of the corrupt practices allegations.

In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court determined that the defect identified by the Gauhati High Court was not of a nature that should lead to the outright dismissal of the entire election petition. The apex court emphasized that the identified procedural flaw, specifically concerning the Form 25 affidavit, was not a fatal defect that could justify the outright dismissal of the entire election petition.

Referring to the legal framework, the Supreme Court clarified that a defect falling under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act does not automatically lead to the peremptory dismissal of an election petition. This ruling, delivered in the case of Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah and Others, underscores the judiciary's inclination to allow substantive matters to be heard rather than being curtailed by minor procedural omissions.

This ruling by the Supreme Court carries significant weight for the landscape of election challenges across India. By overturning the Gauhati High Court's summary dismissal, the apex court has signaled a clear stance against the premature termination of election petitions based solely on minor procedural irregularities. The decision implies that the judiciary will prioritize the substantive examination of allegations, such as those of corrupt practices, over strict adherence to every technicality, especially when the defect does not fundamentally prejudice the opposing party.

This precedent could encourage more election challenges to proceed to a full hearing on their merits, rather than being discarded on technical grounds. For legal practitioners, this judgment clarifies that defects related to Form 25 affidavits, specifically the lack of an affirmation endorsement on a served copy, are unlikely to be considered 'fatal' by the Supreme Court, thereby raising the bar for what constitutes a justifiable cause for peremptory dismissal under election law.

This ruling clarifies that minor procedural defects, specifically regarding Form 25 affidavits in election petitions, may not be considered fatal by the Supreme Court. Lawyers should note this precedent when challenging or defending dismissals based on technicalities, as it suggests a higher bar for summary dismissal and potentially encourages more election challenges to proceed to merits.

Source: Reporting on a recent Supreme Court decision.