P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan, (2012) 5 SCC 511 was overruled in G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 on the question whether it is imperative to file an affidavit in terms of Order VI, Rule 15(4) of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of the averments made in the election petition in addition to an affidavit (in a case where resort to corrupt practices have been alleged against the returned candidate) as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

– Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Saritha S. Nair v. Hibi Eden, [SLP (Civil) No. 10678 of 2020].

_____

Also see, Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, [Civil Appeal Nos. 4179-4180 of 2023] decided on 23.08.2023 and Kimneo Haokip Hangshing v. Kenn Raikhan, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20580 of 2023] decided on 13.09.2024.

_____

The question, concerning non-compliance with the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and its effect on maintainability of an election petition, had a liberal approach in G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar, (2013) 4 SCC 776 as contrasted with a stricter view adopted in Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh, (2000) 8 SCC 191. This ‘evolved’ view has since been relied upon in A. Manju v. Prajwal Revanna, (2022) 3 SCC 269 and Thangjam Arunkumar v. Yumkham Erabot Singh, (2023) 17 SCC 500. In these decisions, Court has further underscored, requirement of filing an affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1)(c) is not of a mandatory character and that ‘substantial compliance’ therewith would suffice.

– Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant, Tankadhar Tripathy v. Dipali Das, [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12491 of 2025] decided on 22.08.2025.