Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SH. HARCHARAN SINGH JOSH versus SH. HARI KISHAN

Decided
23 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 682 · 1996 INSC 572
Also cited as
  • (1997) 10 SCC 294 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal arises against the order of the Delhi High Court made on 26.5.1995 in Election Petition No. 6/94. The appellant is an unsuccessful candidate in respect of one of the Assembly Constituency known as No. 64, Sadar Bazar, to the National Capital Territory of Delhi Assembly. The elections were held on 6th November, 1993. The respondent secured 27126 votes while the appellant secured 25786 votes. The latter filed an election petition on diverse grounds including corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismissed his election petition under Section 86 of the Act on its findings on four issues framed in that case. While upholding the findings in favour of the appellant on issued Nos. 1 to 3, it held that the requisite number of true copies of the eloction petition were not supplied lo the respondent in compliance with Section 81 (3) of the Act. Reasons in support thereof arc some grave mistakes including omiS>ion to supply full text of page No. 18 of the election petition. Another contention raised by the respondent was that the affidavit is not a true copy of the affidavit which was filed in the Court along with the election petition. Though it was rc.iccted by the High Cou_rt as one of the grounds against the rejection of the election petition, the respondent has filed cross objections.

pp. 682–683, margin F

It is not necessary for us to go into the grounds on which the election petition was dismissed by the High Court. Suffice it to state that the objections raised by the respondent regarding non-supply of the true copy of the affidavit is a formidable objection which merits acceptance in view of the recent judgment of this Court in Dr. Smt. Shipra Etc. Etc. v. Shanti/a/ Khoiwal Etc. Etc., JT (1996) 4 SC 67. Therein the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent was not attested by the Oath Commissioner. This Court, after considering the entire case law, held that the affirmation before the prescribed authority in the affidavit and the supply of its true copy is mandatory so that the returned candidate would not be misled in his understanding that imputation of the corrupt practices were sole1nnly affirmed and duly verified before the prescribed authority. For that purpose, Form 25 prescribed by Section 83 requires verification before prescribed authority. The concept of substantial compliance has on applicalion in such a case. It is seen that the copy of the affidavit supplied to the respondent does not contain the affirmation by the Oath Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the defect is not a curable defect. Therefore, the dismissal of the election petition on this ground is sustainable in law.

p. 683, margin B

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on an order of this Court in C.A. No. 925 of 1995 (Boota Singh v. Sher Singh & 01>.), decided on March 13, 1996. It would be seen that a Bench of two Judges of this Court has not expressed any conclusiYe opinion on the contro\'ersy. On the other hand, this Court remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with la\v. Under these circumstances, the ratio therein is of no assistance to the appellant.

p. 683, margin F

The appeal is dismissed. But, in the circu1nstances \vithouL costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 683, margin G