Supreme Court of India· 24 August 2026

Does Section 81(3) of the RoP Act prescribe any particular form of attestation?

Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors

2026 INSC 915 · Civil Appeal No.7474 of 2025
Coram: K. Vinod Chandran; J. B. Pardiwala

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.81(3) Representation of People…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. All that the provision requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the petition under his own signature, taking responsibility for the copy served to be a true copy of the original petition, and no particular form of attestation is prescribed. Different rubber stamps which convey the same meaning therefore make no difference.

Headnote

Representation of People Act, 1951 — s.81(3) — s.83 — s.86 — Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 — Form-25 — Rule 94A — Attestation of true copy — Peremptory dismissal — Representation of People Act, 1951 — s.83 — s.86 — Form-25 defect not fatal to the petition — Held: A defect under Section 83 does not entail peremptory dismissal under Section 86. Where Form-25 read with Rule 94A is not in conformity, only the parts alleging corrupt practices are struck off and the other independent grounds tried on merits. (¶21) Representation of People Act, 1951 — s.81(3) — No particular form of attestation prescribed — Held further: Section 81(3) requires only that the copy be attested by the petitioner under his own signature to be a true copy of the petition. No particular form of attestation is prescribed, so different rubber stamps conveying the same meaning suffice. (¶8, 9) Representation of People Act, 1951 — s.81(3) — “Copy” need not be an exact copy — Held further: The word ‘copy’ does not mean an absolutely exact copy but one so true that nobody can, by any possibility, misunderstand it. The test is whether the variation from the original is calculated to mislead an ordinary person. (¶23) Precedent — Constitution Bench prevails over three Judge Benches — Election Petition restored — Held further: The Constitution Bench decision holds the field and the three Judge Benches to the contrary need not be looked into. The Election Petition is restored to the High Court. Appeal allowed. (¶25, 26)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 8Admittedly, there was difference in the attestation in the Election Petition, as noticed hereinabove. Section 81 (3) provides every Election Petition to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents and requires every such copy to be attested by the Election Petitioner under his own signature, to be true copy of the petition. In fact, the signature of the Election Petitioner on the foot of the page, certifying the same as true copy would suffice, was the clear declaration in F.A. Sapa[^2]. The learned Judges found that on a plain reading of Section 81(3), two requirements come out; one, with respect to the number of copies being equal to the number of respondents and the other, regarding attestation by the petitioner himself, that such copy is a true copy of the petition. All that the provision requires is that the copies should be attested by the petitioner to be true copy of the petition under his own signature, taking responsibility for the copy served to be a true copy of the original petition and no particular form of attestation is prescribed.

Paragraph 9We respectfully concur with the findings in F.A. Sapa[^2] and reverse the finding to the contrary in the impugned judgment since the different rubber stamps employed convey the same meaning.

Acts & Sections

s.81(3) Representation of People Act, 1951s.83 Representation of People Act, 1951s.86 Representation of People Act, 1951Rule 94A Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury v. Kripanath Mallah & Ors — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an election petition be dismissed under Section 86, RoP Act, for an unattested Form-25?Must a copy served under Section 81(3), RoP Act, be an absolutely exact copy?Which decision prevails where three Judge Benches conflict with a Constitution Bench?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections