Supreme Court Rules Private Citizens Can File Complaints Against Elected Representatives for False Election Affidavits

A ruling handed down on Friday by the Supreme Court established that ordinary members of the public may lodge criminal complaints against elected officials found to have submitted false or incomplete disclosures in their election affidavits, a position grounded in the obligations set out under the Representation of the People Act. Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the top court held that the bar on private complaints does not extend to cases of this nature. Under Section 195 of the CrPC, a criminal court's ability to take up certain offences depends on a written complaint being lodged by either the relevant public servant holding authorised status or the court that has jurisdiction over the matter. The two-judge panel — Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu — determined that a private complaint alleging a violation of Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act does not need to satisfy the threshold requirements set out under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A ruling from the High Court established the matter as PC. Where a complaint lodged against a returned candidate proves vexatious or rests on groundless allegations, magistrates with jurisdiction hold the authority to issue whatever orders the facts of that particular matter warrant; Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act attaches penalties to candidates who supply false particulars, withhold required details, or omit mandatory disclosures from nomination papers or accompanying affidavits; and the bench added that, having addressed the question put before it, the High Court's direction to close the proceedings at the trial magistrate's level is upheld, albeit on grounds distinct from those the High Court itself had articulated. In the court's view, while the Election Commission holds authority within its designated domain and has produced guidelines and press notes reflecting its reading of relevant statutory provisions, the power to interpret legislation rests principally with the judiciary — meaning those guidelines and press notes carry no binding force over the courts. Those remarks from the bench arose out of an appeal that Rajkumar Madki had brought before the court, challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling handed down on 7 March 2025. A ruling from the High Court set aside the criminal complaint he had filed against Shailendra Beldale, who holds a seat in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing the Bidar constituency. According to Madki, the affidavit attached to Beldale's nomination papers for the 2023 Assembly election contained a residential address that did not accurately reflect where he actually lived. A private complaint lodged before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru, invoking Section 200 of the CrPC, set out an alleged breach punishable under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act; the complainant's position, as part of that filing, was that nothing in the legislative text of Section 195 of the CrPC confined the taking of cognizance over false affidavit disclosures by a candidate seeking election — offences falling within the ambit of Section 125-A — to complaints originating from a public servant, and that had Parliament intended such a restriction, an express amendment to Section 195 would have been the appropriate vehicle for introducing it. The bench observed that Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act carries a relatively short legislative history, given how recently that provision came into force. In the bench's observation, Section 125-A took effect within the RoP Act from 24 August 2002, whereas Section 195 of the Cr. The Penal Code underwent amendment in April 2006, with the court noting that lawmakers who added Section 125-A to the Representation of the People Act four years prior were understood to have acted with awareness of that provision's implications. The legislature's decision not to bring Section 125-A of the RoP Act within the ambit of Section 195, Cr. appears to reflect a deliberate drafting choice rather than an accidental gap. The panel clarified that the provision in question operates with clear legislative intent, and that no court would be prevented from taking up an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act on the basis of a complaint filed by an ordinary citizen.

Supreme Court Rules Private Citizens Can File Complaints Against Elected Representatives for False Election Affidavits

Related Posts

Supreme Court Rules Private Citizens Can File Complaints Against Elected Representatives for False Election Affidavits

Related Posts