Who may complain about a false election affidavit? Any person, the Supreme Court has held: private complaints over false election affidavits can be filed under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, without satisfying Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
New Delhi: A voter or any other private person can lodge a criminal complaint before a magistrate alleging that a candidate furnished false information or concealed information in a nomination affidavit, the Supreme Court has ruled. That is an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Karnataka High Court’s reasoning that only the Election Commission or a public servant could initiate such a case has been set aside [Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale].
The judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026 was delivered on October 16, 2026, by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, and Justice Datta authored it. The quashing of the complaint against the respondent was nevertheless left in place by the Court, on different grounds.
The question, and the answer
In these words, the Bench framed the issue:
“Whether Section 125-A of the RoP Act should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC?”
Certain offences, including those in Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be taken cognisance of by courts under Section 195(1)(a) except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned. Section 125A finds no place in that list, Justice Datta pointed out:
“It is plain that the text of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 does not include Section 125-A of the RoP Act.”
Section 195 was amended in 2006, four years after Section 125A was introduced, and the Court reasoned that the omission therefore had to be treated as deliberate:
“The legislature is presumed to be conscious of its insertion of Section 125-A in the RoP Act four years back.”
Section 125A operates notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Court noted, and no enactment confines a complaint under it to a public servant. The High Court, it held, “was, therefore, clearly in error in returning the finding that it did.”
ALSO READ: No Hiding Spouse’s Assets, Municipal Poll Candidates Must Reveal Them: Supreme Court
A press note is not a limit on who may complain
An Election Commission press note of June 16, 2020 was relied on by the respondent. Under it, the Commission said it would examine complaints pointing to serious omissions in affidavits and refer them for investigation case by case. The Bench declined to treat it as a limit on who may complain:
“interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts and such guidelines/press notes do not bind us.”
It concluded on that footing that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125A “need not pass muster” of Section 195.
Why the complaint still did not survive
The legal question was decided in the appellant’s favour, but the proceedings were not revived by the Bench. Prima facie, on the record, the allegation about the respondent’s residential address was found rebutted, and a conviction appeared remote, so that continuing the trial would only consume judicial time. The closing of the proceedings before the trial magistrate by the High Court was upheld, for reasons different from those the High Court had given. The appeal was disposed of, with each party bearing its own costs. Beyond this, the Court expressed no view on the respondent, who is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing.
The Bench added that magistrates retain the power, depending on the facts of each case, to pass appropriate orders against complaints that are frivolous or filed to harass elected candidates.
The complaint and the High Court
Before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru, the appellant, Rajkumar Madki, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He alleged that the respondent, Dr. Shailendra Beldale, a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly elected from the Bidar constituency in 2023, had made a false declaration about his residential address in the affidavit filed with his nomination papers. That is an allegation only; the Court found it prima facie rebutted on the record.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint at the respondent’s instance. It held that Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied, so that only the Election Commission or the concerned public servant could set the criminal law in motion, leaving a voter to the remedy of an election petition. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal.
Where Section 125A came from
Act No. 72 of 2002 inserted Section 125A into the Representation of the People Act. A candidate who fails to furnish information, gives false information or conceals information in a nomination paper or affidavit faces imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both. In October 2019, a three-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in the case concerning Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s affidavit, had already observed that concealment in an affidavit exposes a candidate to prosecution under the provision.
In July 2026, the Court also held in a Gujarat municipal election matter that Section 125A could not be invoked for municipal polls, since the Act defines election as one to Parliament and State Legislatures.
What the judgment changes
On who may set the criminal law in motion over false or concealed information in election affidavits, the ruling settles the matter. A voter no longer has to wait for the Election Commission or a public servant to file the complaint, and cannot be turned away on the ground that an election petition is the only remedy.
The door is not unguarded, though. Magistrates examining such complaints must weigh the material at the threshold and can stop cases that are meant to harass, as the dismissal of the present complaint itself shows.
Case Title: Sri Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale [Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora for the appellant; Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli for the respondent