Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
DR. (SMT.) SHIPRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI SHANTI LAL KHOIWAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1691 1996 SCC (5) 181
JT 1996 (5) 681 1996 SCALE (3)369
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8080 OF 1994 AND 6635 OF 1995.
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO.200 OF 1993
Jhamak Lal
V.
Dr. Laxminarayan Pande & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
BHARUCHA, J.
I am in respectful agreement with the judgment and
order of our learned brother, K. Ramaswamy, J. I would set
out may reasons, briefly, thus:
The question that must be posed, as indicated by this
Court’s previous decisions, is : does the document
purporting to be a true copy of the election petition
mislead in a material particular ? The "true copy" of the
election petition furnished by the appellant election
(election petitioner) to the respondent (the successful
candidate) did not show that the appellant’s affidavit
supporting his allegations of corrupt practice had been duly
sworn or affirmed. Where corrupt practice is alleged, the
election petitioner must support the allegation by making an
affidavit in the format prescribed. An affidavit must be
sworn or affirmed in the manner required by law, or it is
not an affidavit. The document purporting to be a true copy
of the election petition furnished by the appellant to the
respondent gave the impression that the appellant’s
affidavit supporting his allegations of corrupt practice had
not been sworn or affirmed and was, therefore, no affidavit
at all; it misled in a material particular and its supply
was, as the High Court held, fatal to the election petition.