Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Civil Appeal No. 7474 of 2025, Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury vs Kripanath Mallah & Others, arising from Election Petition No. 1 of 2024 concerning the 2024 election to the No. 7 Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency in Assam.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
The civil appeal was filed under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court on April 4, 2025.
The High Court had dismissed Election Petition No. 1 of 2024 at the threshold following an application filed by the returned candidate under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The original election petition was filed by Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury, who had contested the 2024 Parliamentary election from the Karimganj Parliamentary Constituency.
According to the appeal papers, Choudhury secured 5,26,733 votes, while the returned candidate secured 5,45,093 votes, a difference of 18,360 votes.
The election petition had raised allegations, among other things, of alleged corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These allegations remained to be adjudicated on their merits.
The Gauhati High Court, however, dismissed the election petition at the threshold over objections concerning compliance with statutory requirements relating to copies and attestation of an election petition.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the correctness of the threshold dismissal. He, among other things, contended that the requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had been complied with and that the election petition should not have been dismissed on the procedural grounds accepted by the High Court.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the civil appeal.
The detailed judgment or order of the Supreme Court is awaited. The precise reasons, directions and operative consequences of Thursday’s decision will be known after the order becomes available.
No comment can be made at this stage on the merits of the underlying allegations in the election petition, which will be governed by the directions contained in the Supreme Court’s order.
Senior advocate Harin Pravinkant Raval appeared for the appellant, assisted by advocate-on-record Adeel Ahmed.
The decision comes in the context of the statutory framework governing election petitions and their adjudication under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Further details will be available after the Supreme Court releases its detailed order.