In a ruling delivered on August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court addressed a critical question for Indian elections: what happens when an election petition has minor technical flaws in the copies served to the winning candidate? The judgment in Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah (Civil Appeal No. 7474/2025) clarifies the standards for attestation and affidavit requirements, making it easier for candidates to challenge election results without being thrown out on technicalities.

This matters because election petitions are the legal route to challenge a candidate's victory. If courts dismiss them over small errors, the democratic process suffers. The Supreme Court's decision ensures that substantial compliance with the law is enough, not rigid formalism.

The Case: A Lok Sabha Election Challenged

The case arose from the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Assam's Karimganj constituency. Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, the appellant, lost to Kripanath Mallah and filed an election petition in the High Court. The respondent (the winner) sought dismissal of the petition under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, citing three defects in the served copies:

The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the attestation was improper. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court Said

The Supreme Court, in a judgment by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, reversed the High Court's decision on attestation. It held that the different rubber stamps do not matter. What matters is that the petitioner signed each page, taking responsibility that the copy is true. The Court relied on its earlier decision in F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991), which held that no particular form of attestation is prescribed; simply signing at the foot of each page suffices.

On the missing pages issue, the Court agreed with the High Court that the claim was an afterthought, as the respondent never raised it earlier. That finding was upheld.

The Form-25 Affidavit: A Trickier Issue

The real fight was over Form-25. Under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, an affidavit alleging corrupt practices must be signed by the petitioner in the presence of a Magistrate, Notary, or Commissioner of Oaths. The respondent argued that the copy served did not show such attestation, citing Dr. Shipra v. Shanti Lal Khoiwal (1996), which said this defect is fatal.

However, the Supreme Court noted that in the paper book, the original affidavit was attested by the Commissioner of Affidavits, but the copy had no such mark. The Court queried the appellant's counsel about this, but the appellant relied on T.M. Jacob v. C. Poulose (1999) and T. Phungzathang v. Hangkhanlian (2001), which held that substantial compliance and curability apply, and that Dr. Shipra is no longer good law.

The Court carefully examined these decisions. It appears the Court accepted the principle that defects in the copy, if the original is valid, can be cured. The judgment emphasizes that the Election Petition should not be dismissed in limine unless the defects are so serious that the respondent is misled or prejudiced.

Why This Ruling Matters

This ruling is a relief for candidates who file election petitions. It tells us that the law is not about technicalities but about fairness. If the petitioner has substantially complied with the requirements, the petition should be heard on its merits.

The Supreme Court's approach aligns with the democratic principle that every vote counts, and every viable challenge to an election should be adjudicated on facts, not dismissed on form.

As the Court noted, the very purpose of Section 81(3) is to ensure that the respondent gets a true copy of the petition. If that is achieved, a minor variation in attestation wording won't defeat justice.

For the common citizen, this means that when you challenge an election result, the courts will not nitpick your paperwork. The system focuses on the substance of your allegations.

In a world where election disputes are common, this judgment is a refreshing dose of pragmatism.