Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury vs Kripanath Mallah & Ors.

In this case, Hafiz Rashid Ahmed Choudhury challenged the 2024 Lok Sabha election victory of Kripanath Mallah from Karimganj, Assam. The High Court threw out his election petition without a full trial because of minor technical errors in the copies given to the winning candidate. Specifically, some pages were stamped 'certified true copy' instead of 'attested true copy,' and the copy of his affidavit (Form-25) did not show the notary's stamp, even though the original file submitted to the court was properly signed and stamped. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and restored the case. The Court explained that different stamps like 'certified true copy' and 'attested true copy' mean the same thing under the law as long as the petitioner signed them and took responsibility. Regarding the missing notary stamp on the candidate's copy, the Court ruled that if the original affidavit submitted to the court is properly notarized, the missing stamp on the copy is not a fatal mistake. It does not mislead the other side. The Supreme Court ordered the High Court to check the original papers. If the original is correct, the High Court must hear the entire case on its merits.

The appellant challenged a Lok Sabha election result in Assam. The High Court rejected his petition early on because the paperwork copies given to the winning candidate had minor stamping errors and lacked visible notary marks.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the election petition. It directed the High Court to check if the original court documents were properly verified, and if so, hear the case on its merits.

This judgment protects litigants from losing their genuine court cases over minor printing or copying mistakes. It ensures that courts focus on actual justice and truth rather than throwing out cases on technical, administrative errors.