The Supreme Court has ruled that the penal provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) are confined to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures and cannot be invoked in disputes arising from municipal elections. At the same time, the Court clarified that candidates who submit false election affidavits in local body polls are not beyond the reach of criminal law and may still face prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where the governing municipal statute lacks a specific penal provision.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal filed by Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, who challenged criminal proceedings initiated over allegations that she had failed to disclose immovable properties owned by her husband while contesting the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat.
The appellant had been summoned by a Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which criminalises furnishing false information or concealing material facts in election affidavits. The Gujarat High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the proceedings.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Representation of the People Act governs only parliamentary and assembly elections, whereas municipal elections are regulated by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994.
Accepting this contention, the Bench examined the definition of “election” under Section 2(d) of the Representation of the People Act and concluded that the statute is restricted to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures. Consequently, Section 125A could not legally form the basis of prosecution in a municipal election dispute.
The Court, however, made it clear that this interpretation does not grant immunity to candidates accused of filing false affidavits in local body elections.
Referring to the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, the Bench noted that candidates are legally required to disclose details relating to their assets, liabilities, educational qualifications and other prescribed particulars through an affidavit. Although earlier provisions in the Gujarat Municipalities Act imposed penalties for false declarations, those provisions were removed through legislative amendments in 1990.
In view of that legislative gap, the Court observed that offences involving false declarations in municipal election affidavits would instead fall within the ambit of the Indian Penal Code.
The Bench also found fault with the Magistrate’s approach. Although the private complaint had referred to relevant IPC provisions dealing with false declarations and false evidence, cognizance had been taken only under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The Court held that invoking an incorrect statutory provision at the stage of cognizance does not automatically invalidate the proceedings. Relying on established precedent, it reiterated that courts take cognizance of an offence rather than of a particular statutory label, and such an error is a curable irregularity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provided no failure of justice has occurred.
Another issue before the Court concerned the scope of asset disclosure in election affidavits. The appellant argued that she was not required to declare properties exclusively owned by her husband.
Rejecting this submission, the Bench interpreted the prescribed affidavit format, which requires disclosure of assets belonging to “myself, my spouse and dependents.” It held that the punctuation in the form merely separates categories and does not restrict disclosure to jointly owned assets.
According to the Court, the obligation extends equally to properties owned individually by the candidate, the spouse and dependent family members. Therefore, assets held exclusively by the spouse must also be disclosed.
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance under the Representation of the People Act and remitted the matter for fresh consideration under the appropriate legal provisions.
The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the truth of the allegations, observing that if a false affidavit is filed during an electoral process, it constitutes an offence against society and deserves proper investigation.
