Voters Can File Private Complaints for False Election Affidavits

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu of the Supreme Court decided Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale (2026). The Court held that a private complaint for an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) is maintainable, and that the bar under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not apply to it. However, on the facts, the Court declined to revive the complaint and upheld the Karnataka High Court's quashing order on different grounds.

What was the Background of Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale (2026) Case? 

• Respondent Dr. Shailendra Beldale was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023. 
• The appellant, Rajkumar Madki, alleged that the respondent had given a false declaration about his residential address in the affidavit filed with his nomination papers. 
• The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging an offence under Section 125A of the RP Act. 
• The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint. It held that the restrictions under Section 195(1) CrPC applied, and that only the Election Commission of India or the concerned public servant, and not a private individual, could initiate such a complaint. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On whether Section 195(1) CrPC applies to Section 125A RP Act: 

• Section 195(1) CrPC does not include Section 125A of the RP Act among the offences that require a complaint by a public servant. 
• Section 125A was inserted in 2002, while Section 195 CrPC was amended later, in 2006. Since the legislature did not add Section 125A to Section 195 at that time, the omission must be treated as deliberate. 
• If the legislature had intended that cognizance of a false affidavit offence could be taken only on a public servant's complaint, it could have amended Section 195 CrPC to say so. 

On the absence of any statutory bar: 

• No enactment provides that a complaint for an offence under Section 125A can be lodged only by a public servant. 
• Section 125A itself opens with a non-obstante clause, making the punishment applicable notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force. 

On the respondent's arguments: 

• The respondent argued that permitting private complaints would encourage frivolous criminal proceedings against returned candidates. 
• The respondent also relied on an Election Commission press note of June 2020, stating that the Commission would take up complaints showing serious omissions in affidavits and refer them to investigating agencies case by case. 
• The Court held that Election Commission guidelines and press notes do not bind courts in interpreting statutory provisions, since interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts. 

On safeguards against frivolous complaints: 

• Magistrates are empowered to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints, or proceedings instituted merely to harass elected candidates, depending on the facts of each case. 

On the facts of the case: 

• The allegation regarding the residential address had been prima facie rebutted by the documents on record. 
• The possibility of conviction appeared remote, and continuing the proceedings would only consume judicial time. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court rejected the legal reasoning of the High Court but did not revive the criminal proceedings. It upheld the quashing of the complaint for different reasons. The appeal was disposed of, with the parties bearing their own costs.

What is Section 125A of the RP Act? 

About: 

• Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides the penalty for filing a false affidavit or concealing information in election nomination documents. 
• It was inserted in 2002, following the Supreme Court's decisions on voters' right to know the antecedents of candidates (Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002, and PUCL v. Union of India, 2003). 

Provisions: 

• A candidate who, with intent to be elected in an election: 
  • fails to furnish information required under Section 33A(1); or 
  • gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or 
  • conceals any information, 

in his nomination paper under Section 33(1) or in his affidavit under Section 33A(2), commits an offence. 

• Punishment: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or both. 
• The provision applies notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. 

Related Provision (Section 33A RP Act — Right to Information): 

• A candidate must disclose whether he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment of two years or more in a pending case in which charges have been framed. 
• He must also disclose whether he has been convicted of an offence (other than those under Section 8(1), (2) or (3)) and sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more. 
• This information is furnished along with an affidavit under Section 33A(2), which the Returning Officer displays for public information.

What is Section 215 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 215 of the BNSS deals with prosecution for contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents given in evidence. 
• It corresponds to Section 195 of the CrPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 215(1)(a): No court shall take cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 172 to 188 IPC), or of abetment, attempt or conspiracy to commit them, except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate (or another authorised public servant). 
• Section 215(1)(b): Certain offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents produced or given in evidence, when committed in or in relation to a court proceeding, can be taken cognizance of only on the written complaint of that court or a court to which it is subordinate.