The Supreme Court ruled that Gujarat municipal poll candidates must disclose both their own and their spouse’s assets in election affidavits to ensure transparency. It also held that a magistrate’s incorrect statutory provision at cognisance does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court ruled that candidates contesting elections to Gujarat municipal bodies must disclose not only their own assets, but also assets owned by their spouses in the election affidavits.
The Court further held that where a magistrate mistakenly invokes an incorrect statutory provision at the stage of taking cognisance, the defect is curable and does not automatically invalidate the criminal proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh issued the directions while partly allowing an appeal filed by Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, a former municipal councillor in Gujarat.
She challenged criminal proceedings launched against her over allegations that she failed to disclose certain immovable properties allegedly owned by her husband in her nomination affidavit for the 2015 Gujarat municipal elections.
However, the Court did not quash the criminal case. Instead, it set aside the magistrate’s order taking cognisance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). The matter was remanded to the trial court for it to take fresh cognisance under the proper legal provisions and proceed in accordance with law.
In the judgment, Justice Karol clarified that the bench had taken no view on the merits of the allegations.
The Court referred to the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, as amended in 2005, and observed,
“The appellant (Dafda), in view of the above, had to have disclosed the properties owned by her spouse too”.
The dispute began with a private complaint alleging that the appellant did not disclose multiple parcels of land that stood exclusively in her husband’s name while filing the affidavit required to be submitted along with her nomination papers.
In 2017, the magistrate issued summons under Section 125A of the RPA, a provision addressing false affidavits submitted by election candidates. The Gujarat High Court declined to interfere with the proceedings.
Before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the RPA applies only to elections for Parliament and state legislatures, and not to municipal elections, which are instead governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules.
It was also contended that the election rules require disclosure only of properties jointly held and not those solely owned by the spouse. Rejecting this interpretation, the bench analysed Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, as amended in 2005, and held that,
“The candidate/declarant is to give details of the property held by them, their spouse and their dependents, including what is held by them jointly. It does not say, in any manner whatsoever, that the property held solely by the spouse is not to be mentioned therein,”
On the issue of cognisance, the bench accepted the appellant’s argument that Section 125A of the RPA could not be invoked for municipal elections, since the Act’s definition of “election” is limited to elections to Parliament and state legislatures.
At the same time, the Court ruled that the magistrate’s mistake in choosing the incorrect statutory provision would not render the proceedings void.
It stated,
“The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking cognisance under the wrong section is, in fact a curable defect so long as the court that has taken cognisance has the power to take cognisance of the other sections also,”
It further explained,
“The taking of cognisance itself, even if it was taken under a singular section and that too was erroneous, for it is a well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not people. If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated,”
Accordingly, the bench remitted the matter to the jurisdictional magistrate to reconsider cognisance under the appropriate provisions and proceed thereafter in accordance with law.