India's Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday establishing that ordinary citizens hold the right to file a private criminal complaint against any elected lawmaker found to have provided false details or omitted required information on a nomination affidavit.
The court's ruling drew a distinction between two procedural questions, finding that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — a statutory provision governing when courts may take cognisance of certain offences — does not bar private individuals from bringing complaints tied to electoral fraud. Under this ruling, voter complaints about a candidate's false or incomplete disclosures — covering assets, past criminal matters, academic qualifications, or home address — can set a court review in motion.
A two-judge panel comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set out how the rules governing election-related financial disclosures are intended to function in practice. The court held that under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, complaints filed by ordinary voters cannot be dismissed solely because the Election Commission of India or an authorised public official did not initiate the matter. The panel found that for offences arising under Section 125A from sworn candidate disclosures, the procedural bar set out in Section 195 of the CrPC has no operative force.
In the court's view, an election affidavit functions as a formal public declaration addressed to voters, meaning that any candidate who knowingly files false statements in one effectively wrongs every member of the electorate.
The Supreme Court also drew procedural boundaries around the filing of complaints, with the aim of protecting elected officials from bad-faith legal actions while keeping avenues open for citizens to seek accountability. Where a complaint lodged by a voter or political opponent is found to lack any factual foundation and appears designed solely to harass a sitting lawmaker, the magistrate hearing the matter holds the authority under existing law to impose penalties against the complainant. At preliminary hearings, the presiding magistrate holds the authority to examine contextual evidence, relevant documentation, and the intentions behind a voter's actions.
The ruling arose from a contested election in Karnataka's northern constituency following the 2023 state assembly vote. A legal challenge filed by Rajkumar Madki, a Karnataka resident, targets Shailendra Beldale — who won the Bidar Assembly seat — over allegations that the nomination affidavit he submitted contained false information and fabricated details about his permanent home address.
A private criminal complaint lodged by Madki before a Bengaluru magistrate was brought to an end by the Karnataka High Court on 7 March 2025, with that bench holding that any prosecution under Section 125A could only be set in motion through a formal written complaint submitted directly by the Election Commission as an institution. Ruling in favour of private citizens' right to file complaints, the Supreme Court nonetheless opted not to disturb Beldale's criminal proceedings, which had already been closed.
