Supreme Court Revives Karimganj Election Petition, Sends Matter to Gauhati HC

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed an appeal filed by Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury in the Karimganj parliamentary election matter and restored his election petition to the Gauhati High Court for fresh consideration. A bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran set aside the High Court order that had dismissed Choudhury’s election petition at the threshold in connection with the 2024 election from the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency. The judgment was delivered in Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025. The case arose from the Gauhati High Court’s order under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The main issues before the High Court concerned the attestation of copies of the election petition, the Form-25 affidavit accompanying allegations of corrupt practices, and a claim relating to four missing pages. While the High Court had rejected the allegation concerning the missing pages, it dismissed the election petition over the manner in which the copies had been attested. The Supreme Court, however, held that there is no prescribed format for attestation under Section 81(3). Referring to its earlier judgment in F.A. Sapa v. Singora, the court said the election petitioner’s signature at the bottom of the page, taking responsibility for the copy as a true copy, was sufficient. The court also held that the expressions “attested to be true copy” and “certified to be true copy” conveyed the same meaning, rejecting the contrary finding of the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court separately considered the issue concerning the absence of an indication of attestation or notarisation on the copy of the Form-25 affidavit supplied to the returned candidate. The bench examined several earlier judgments, including Dr. (Smt.) Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose, T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian, and the Constitution Bench judgment in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore. The court clarified that the earlier Dr. Shipra judgment had not been overruled by T.M. Jacob but had been distinguished. It was also observed that T. Phungzathang had misunderstood the Constitution Bench ruling in T.M. Jacob. The Supreme Court said the Constitution Bench ruling in Murarka Radhey Shyam Kumar continues to govern the issue. Applying that principle, the court held that a defect in the Form-25 affidavit does not automatically require dismissal of an entire election petition. The court noted that the original Form-25 in the present case had admittedly been affirmed before a Commissioner of Affidavits. Gauhati HC Asked to Verify Original Affidavit The Supreme Court directed the Gauhati High Court to verify whether proper attestation of the affirmation on oath is available in the original Form-25 affidavit. If the required attestation is found in the original, the High Court has been directed to proceed with the election petition on its merits. If the attestation is not available, allegations relating to corrupt practices will not be allowed to be pursued. However, other grounds raised in the election petition will still have to be considered on their merits. The Supreme Court ultimately held that there was no justification for sustaining the Gauhati High Court’s order, set it aside, and restored the election petition to the High Court. The Supreme Court’s judgment does not decide whether the substantive allegations made in the election petition are true or false. The effect of Monday’s ruling is limited to setting aside the threshold dismissal and restoring the petition before the Gauhati High Court, which will now consider the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Harin Pravinkant Raval appeared for the appellant, assisted by Advocate -on-Record Adeel Ahmed. Also Read: Supreme Court Forms Panel to Probe Police Excesses During CJP Parliament March