TANKADHAR TRIPATHY versus DIPALI DAS

TANKADHAR TRIPATHY versus DIPALI DAS

The Court held that the law requires 'substantial compliance' with the Form 25 affidavit requirement in the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) rather than strict formality, that defects in such affidavits may be curable but this is a question of fact to be determined by the High Court by examining the extent of compliance and whether defects were curable and timely cured, and therefore remitted the matter to the High Court to identify and enumerate defects, assess substantial compliance and curability, and re-determine maintainability and further proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Tankadhar Tripathy; Respondent: Dipali Das
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Orissa Order Dated 21.03.2025 in IA No. 111 of 2024
Outcome
Appeal disposed; matter remitted to the High Court for rehearing on specified questions
Legal Topics
Election Petition, Obligation on the Election Petitioner, Requirement of Filing an Affidavit, Substantial Compliance, Corrected Affidavit, Form 25 Affidavit
Election Law Civil Procedure Electoral Rules Election Petition Obligation on the Election Petitioner Requirement of Filing an Affidavit Substantial Compliance Corrected Affidavit +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tankadhar Tripathy

Appellant

Dipali Das

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Orissa Order Dated 21.03.2025 in IA No. 111 of 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a fatal defect rendering an Election Petition non-maintainable
  2. 2 Whether an affidavit in Form 25 must be in exact prescribed format or whether 'substantial compliance' suffices
  3. 3 Whether defects in the affidavit are curable and if so within what time-frame and under what procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the law requires 'substantial compliance' with the Form 25 affidavit requirement in the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) rather than strict formality, that defects in such affidavits may be curable but this is a question of fact to be determined by the High Court by examining the extent of compliance and whether defects were curable and timely cured, and therefore remitted the matter to the High Court to identify and enumerate defects, assess substantial compliance and curability, and re-determine maintainability and further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed; matter remitted to the High Court for rehearing on specified questions

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the High Court with directions to identify and enumerate defects in the Form 25 affidavit and assess whether such defects are curable
  • High Court to consider preliminary issues: (i) whether the affidavit is defective under Form 25; (ii) if defective, whether it substantially satisfies Form 25 requirements; (iii) if curable, whether a supplementary affidavit must be filed within the period of limitation; (iv) whether the Tribunal can condone delay...