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.