Summary and Analysis of Tankadhar Tripathy vs Dipali Das
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Tankadhar Tripathy vs Dipali Das
Citation: 2025 INSC 1017
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: August 22, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and deals with the following legal provisions:
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act):
Section 83: Mandates the contents of an Election Petition. Specifically, the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) requires that an affidavit must be filed in the prescribed Form 25 whenever an election petition contains allegations of "corrupt practices."
Section 86: Specifies the grounds on which an Election Petition can be dismissed at the threshold.The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
Order VII Rule 11: Provides grounds for the rejection of a plaint (which includes an election petition).
Order VI Rule 16: Allows the court to strike out unnecessary, scandalous, or vexatious parts of a pleading.The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961:
Rule 94-A: Prescribes the format of the affidavit, which is Form 25.The Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 (Chapter XXXIII): Rules that regulate the procedure for filing and scrutinizing election petitions in the High Court.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellant (Original Defendant): Tankadhar Tripathy (the elected candidate).
Respondent (Original Plaintiff): Dipali Das (the defeated candidate who filed the election petition).
Subject of Dispute: The election to the 07-Jharsuguda Assembly Constituency in Odisha, held in May 2024, which the Appellant won by 1,333 votes.
Core Legal Issue: Whether the failure to file a proper affidavit in Form 25 alongside an election petition alleging "corrupt practices" is a fatal defect that warrants the immediate dismissal of the petition.
Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the case (sent it back) to the High Court for a fresh decision on specific questions related to the Form 25 affidavit.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Background of the Case
After losing the election, Dipali Das (the Respondent) filed an election petition in the Orissa High Court. She challenged the result on two main grounds:
Corrupt Practices: She alleged that the winning candidate, Tankadhar Tripathy (the Appellant), had hidden his criminal antecedents and assets, which is a "corrupt practice" under election law.
EVMs Discrepancy: She claimed there were technical discrepancies in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) that rendered over 6,000 votes void—a number larger than the victory margin.
The Appellant asked the High Court to dismiss the petition immediately, arguing it was technically flawed. A key argument was that the Respondent did not file a proper affidavit in Form 25 to support the serious allegations of "corrupt practices," as required by law.
The High Court refused to dismiss the petition. It held that the affidavit filed was good enough ("substantial compliance") and gave the Respondent three weeks to file a proper Form 25 affidavit. The Appellant, unhappy with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Core Legal Debate: Strict vs. Liberal Compliance
The entire appeal revolved around one question: How strictly must the rule for the Form 25 affidavit be followed?
Appellant's Argument (Strict View): Citing an old Supreme Court case (Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh), the Appellant argued that filing an affidavit in the exact Form 25 format is mandatory. The absence of a correct affidavit is a fatal defect that should lead to the immediate dismissal of the entire election petition.
Respondent's Argument (Liberal View): The Respondent argued that the affidavit requirement is not mandatory and any defect is curable. The court should always give the petitioner a chance to fix the affidavit before throwing out the case.
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Key Principles
The Supreme Court analyzed previous judgments and laid down the following important principles:
"Substantial Compliance" is the Key Test: The Court clarified that the strict view from the Ravinder Singh case has been replaced by a more practical approach established by a larger bench in G. M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar. The current legal position is that an election petition will not be dismissed outright if the filed affidavit shows "substantial compliance" with Form 25.
What is "Substantial Compliance"? It means the affidavit must do the essential job it is meant for: to provide a solemn affirmation of the truth of the allegations of corrupt practices, giving the accused candidate fair notice of the charges against them. It is not about perfect formatting but about fulfilling the substance of the law.Total Non-Compliance is Fatal: The Court also noted that if there is complete non-compliance (e.g., no affidavit at all), the petition cannot be considered a valid election petition and must be rejected.
Defects Must Be Cured Before Trial: Even if a defect is curable, the High Court must ensure it is fixed before the trial begins. This is to prevent the elected candidate from being ambushed with new or clarified allegations during the trial.
Why the Case Was Sent Back to the High Court (Remanded)
The Supreme Court found the High Court's order lacking in three critical aspects:
i. It did not specify what the exact defects in the affidavit were.
ii. It did not explain how it concluded that the affidavit was in "substantial compliance" with Form 25.
iii. It was unclear if the opportunity to fix the defect was given within the legal time limit (limitation period) for filing such petitions.
Because the High Court failed to conduct this necessary factual analysis, the Supreme Court could not decide the issue itself. Therefore, it sent the case back to the High Court with specific directions to answer these questions.
Directions Given by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court gave the following instructions to the High Court:
Identify the specific defects in the Form 25 affidavit.
Decide if these defects can be cured.
Examine whether the affidavit, as filed, amounts to "substantial compliance."
Determine if a corrected affidavit can be filed after the original time limit for filing the petition has expired.
Remove certain parts of the petition that both parties agreed were unnecessary.
After completing these steps, proceed to a trial on the remaining valid issues in the election petition.
In essence, the Supreme Court emphasized a balanced approach: while technical defects should not easily destroy an election petition, courts must rigorously apply the "substantial compliance" test to ensure fairness and procedural integrity before allowing a case to proceed to a full trial.