Voters Can File Criminal Complaints Against Leaders for False Election Affidavits, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that voters can file private criminal complaints against election candidates for furnishing false affidavits, without requiring the Election Commission of India’s approval.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu set aside a Karnataka High Court order that had held that voters could challenge candidates only through election petitions, while criminal complaints for false declarations were the Election Commission’s responsibility.

The ruling allows courts to take cognisance of complaints under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which penalises candidates for concealing information or making false declarations in their election affidavits.

Why the Supreme Court Overturned the High Court Order

The dispute centred on the relationship between Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act and Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Section 195 restricts courts from taking cognisance of certain offences, including those covered by Sections 172 to 188 of the CrPC, unless a complaint is filed by the relevant public servant or authority.

The Supreme Court held that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act does not fall within the scope of this restriction. Consequently, a private individual can file a complaint alleging that a candidate furnished a false election affidavit, and a court can take cognisance of the alleged offence without the Election Commission’s approval.

The Bench noted that Section 125A was introduced in 2002, while Section 195 of the CrPC was amended in 2006. Parliament’s failure to include Section 125A within the restriction was deliberate, the court said.

The judges observed that if Parliament had intended to restrict such complaints to public authorities, it could have amended Section 195 to include the provision.

Election Commission’s Interpretation Not Binding on Courts

The Supreme Court also rejected the Election Commission’s position that it could examine complaints about false election affidavits and refer cases to the relevant investigating authorities on a case-by-case basis.

The Bench said that while the Election Commission was supreme within its sphere of authority, interpreting statutes was primarily the responsibility of the courts. The commission’s guidelines and press notes, therefore, could not bind the judiciary.

The court held that the Karnataka High Court had erred by relying on the Election Commission’s communication to conclude that private complaints were not maintainable under Section 125A.

An offence under Section 125A is punishable with imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.

Supreme Court Addresses Concerns Over Frivolous Complaints

The court also considered concerns that allowing private criminal complaints could lead to harassment of elected representatives, particularly through politically motivated or frivolous allegations.

Rejecting this apprehension as a ground to bar such complaints, the Bench said magistrates were empowered to pass appropriate orders based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The ruling strengthens voters’ ability to seek criminal action against candidates who allegedly misrepresent information in their election affidavits, while leaving the courts to determine whether individual complaints warrant further proceedings.