Any voter can file a criminal complaint over a false election affidavit, Supreme Court rules

Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held Section 195 CrPC does not bar private complaints under Section 125-A of the RP Act, but left the quashing of a case against a Bidar MLA intact.

A candidate who gives false information in a nomination affidavit commits an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, punishable with up to six months' imprisonment, a fine or both. The Karnataka High Court had held that only the Election Commission, acting through a public servant, could prosecute that offence, and that a voter's remedy was an election petition. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court held otherwise. Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for a bench with Justice Sheel Nagu, held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to Section 125-A, so a private person can file a complaint under Section 200. The Court described this as a question of general public importance it had not decided before. The appellant still lost: the bench left the quashing of his complaint against a Bidar MLA in place, finding a conviction remote.

The complaint against the Bidar MLA

Rajkumar Madki complained to the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 21 August 2023, which gave rise to PCR No. 9254 of 2023 in CC No. 29813 of 2023. He alleged that Dr. Shailendra Beldale, elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Bidar in 2023, had falsely stated his residential address in the affidavit filed with his nomination. On 7 March 2025 the High Court allowed Beldale's writ petition, No. 7458 of 2024, and quashed the complaint. It reasoned that Section 125-A must meet the requirements of Section 195(1) CrPC, that the complaint could come only from the Election Commission, and that a voter could only file an election petition. Special leave was granted on 20 July 2026.

Senior counsel Meenakshi Arora argued for Madki. Senior counsel Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared for Beldale.

The case for an Election Commission monopoly

Nuli traced Sections 33-A and 125-A to the Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002, in force from 24 August 2002, which followed Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms. That case required candidates to disclose their assets, education and criminal antecedents so that voters could make an informed choice. Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 requires the affidavit in Form 26 to be filed with the nomination.

His argument was that the offence is complete when false information is given to the Returning Officer, who is a public servant. Giving false information to a public servant is an offence under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 195(1) CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or a superior. Section 125-A, he said, should be treated the same way. Otherwise defeated candidates would use proxies to file frivolous complaints against winners.

He also relied on Raghunath Deshpande v. State of Karnataka (2015), which he distinguished because IPC offences were also alleged there. And he cited the Election Commission's press note of 16 June 2020. It recorded that individuals were filing Section 125-A complaints in court, and said the Commission would itself take cognizance of serious omissions and refer them for investigation case by case.

Why Section 195 does not apply

The Court began with the text. Section 195(1)(a) lists the offences it covers, Sections 172 to 188 IPC and abetment of, attempts at and conspiracies to commit them. Section 125-A is not on the list. Parliament inserted Section 125-A in August 2002 and amended Section 195 in April 2006. If it had wanted Section 125-A complaints to come only from public servants, it could have added the offence then. Since the legislature is presumed to know its own recent law, the bench treated the omission as deliberate.

Two further points supported this reading. No statute says that only a public servant can complain under Section 125-A. And Section 125-A provides its penalty “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law”. The rigours of Section 195 therefore do not apply to a private complaint under Section 200 alleging a Section 125-A offence. The High Court's contrary finding was clearly wrong.

Having decided the point on the statutory text, the bench did not rely on the Election Commission's clarifications. It said the Commission is supreme in its own sphere, but interpreting statutes is primarily for the courts, and the Commission's press notes do not bind them.

On the fear of harassment, the Court said that if a complaint is filed to harass an elected candidate, or makes frivolous allegations, magistrates already have the powers needed to deal with it on the facts.

Why the complaint still ends

The Court said at the start that continuing the case before the magistrate would be futile. On the documents on record, Beldale had, prima facie, more than effectively rebutted the allegation about his address. The possibility of a conviction was remote, and a trial would only use up judicial time. The bench therefore did not record Nuli's arguments on the merits of the complaint.

Order

The Court held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act need not satisfy Section 195 CrPC, and set aside the High Court's contrary reasoning. The High Court's decision closing the proceedings before the magistrate was upheld for different reasons. The appeal was disposed of and the parties will bear their own costs.