New Delhi: Any private citizen can go to a magistrate with a criminal complaint against an elected representative for allegedly filing a false affidavit in an election, the Supreme Court has ruled, holding that such complaints do not need the Election Commission of India's prior sanction.
A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said the ECI cannot dictate how statutory provisions should be interpreted through its press notes or guidelines. 'We hold that a private complaint alleging offence committed under Section 125-A, RoP Act need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195, Cr.PC, as held by the High Court,' the bench said in a judgment delivered on October 16.
Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, punishes a candidate who, to get elected, fails to furnish prescribed information, knowingly gives false information or conceals information in the nomination paper or the accompanying affidavit. The offence carries up to six months in jail, a fine, or both.
A high court had held that a complaint under this provision had to satisfy Section 195(1) of the CrPC, which bars courts from taking cognisance of certain offences unless the public servant concerned files a written complaint. On that reading, the ECI, not an individual voter, had to start criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected that view. It noted that Section 195 expressly covers offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but does not include Section 125A. Parliament introduced Section 125A in 2002 and amended Section 195 in 2006, yet left the election-law offence out of the restriction. That omission, the court held, must be treated as deliberate.
The ruling came on an appeal by Rajkumar Madki against a Karnataka High Court order quashing his complaint against Bidar MLA Shailendra Beldale, elected in 2023. Madki had alleged that Beldale gave a false residential address in his nomination affidavit.
The court settled the legal question in favour of private complainants but declined to revive proceedings against Beldale, saying the documents on record had rebutted the allegation and the chance of conviction was remote.
On the risk of harassment, the bench said magistrates are empowered to deal with frivolous complaints under existing law. It also said it did not need to lean on the ECI's June 16, 2020 press note. 'Interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts and such guidelines/press notes do not bind us,' it said.