GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Congress leader Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury challenging the election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Kripanath Mallah from Assam’s No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The order was issued by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, who ruled that the petition did not comply with the statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
ALSO READ: Guwahati And Nagaland Scientists Develop New Method To Kill Cancer Cells
The petition, filed under Sections 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of People Act, alleged that the winning candidate engaged in various corrupt practices during campaigning and polling. Choudhury’s allegations included booth capturing, voter intimidation, rigging, and bribery.
In response, the petition was challenged by Mallah on procedural grounds. The BJP MP filed an interlocutory application seeking dismissal of the petition, citing non-compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. He contended that the petition was not filed in the proper format and that four pages were missing from the copy served on him. It was also submitted that the affidavit required under Section 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was not notarised.
Justice Medhi noted that while the argument on missing pages lacked merit due to the applicant’s silence during earlier proceedings, the issue of attestation was critical. Upon examination, it was found that pages 1 to 84 of the petition copy served to the respondent bore the stamp “attested to be true copy of the petition”, whereas pages 85 to 185 bore the stamp “certified to be true copy”. Page 215, corresponding to page 183 of the petition, had neither attestation nor certification.
The court held that the variation in terminology was not a matter of semantics but a failure to meet the statutory mandate. As per Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, every copy of the election petition served on other parties must be “attested by the petitioner to be a true copy”. The use of “certified to be true copy” was found to fall short of this requirement, as it did not explicitly relate to the petition itself.
The petitioner’s argument—that there was no material difference between “attested” and “certified” and that no prejudice had been caused to the respondent—was rejected by the court. It held that the provision was mandatory and non-compliance attracted statutory consequences.
“The requirement under the statute is mandatory in nature which is fortified by laying down a consequence of any violation thereof,” the court observed.
