LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 24 August 2026

Which decision prevails where three Judge Benches conflict with a Constitution Bench?

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

The Constitution Bench decision holds the field and the three Judge Benches to the contrary need not be looked into, by virtue of the Constitution Bench decision regarding the precedential value of larger bench decisions declared in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others. On that footing Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar holds the field on Section 81(3).

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 25The Constitution Bench decision in Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar[^6] holds the field and the three Judge Benches, to the contrary, need not be looked into by virtue of the Constitution Bench decision regarding the precedential value of larger bench decisions, as declared in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others[^7].
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?Does Section 81(3) of the RoP Act prescribe any particular form of attestation?Must a copy served under Section 81(3), RoP Act, be an absolutely exact copy?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections