The Supreme Court has ruled that private individuals can initiate criminal complaints against elected candidates accused of furnishing false information or concealing material details in their election affidavits. The court held that such complaints under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are not barred by Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which requires a complaint by the concerned public servant for certain specified offences.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the ruling on October 16 in an appeal filed by Rajkumar Madki against Karnataka MLA Dr Shailendra Beldale. The court, however, upheld the decision to quash Madki’s complaint, finding that the allegation against Beldale had been prima facie rebutted by documents on record and that the prospect of a conviction was remote.
The judgment, authored by Justice Datta, clarified the legal position on who can initiate proceedings under Section 125A while distinguishing that question from whether the allegations in an individual complaint justify a criminal trial.
Section 195 CrPC does not bar private complaints
The Supreme Court held that Section 195(1) of the CrPC does not include offences under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. The provision prescribes punishment for candidates who knowingly provide false information or conceal information in their nomination papers or accompanying affidavits.
The bench observed that if Parliament had intended complaints concerning false information in election affidavits to be initiated exclusively by public servants, it could have expressly included Section 125A in Section 195 of the CrPC.
“If indeed it were the intention of the legislature that cognizance of any offence relating to furnishing of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with intent of being elected in an election could only be taken if the complainant were a public servant, the same could have been provided by an amendment of Section 195, CrPC,” the court said.
The judges noted that Section 125A was introduced in 2002, while Section 195 of the CrPC was amended in 2006. Despite the subsequent amendment, Parliament did not add Section 125A to the list of offences covered by the restriction. The bench said this omission had to be treated as deliberate.
The court also pointed out that no provision in any enactment stipulates that a complaint under Section 125A can be filed only by a public servant. It relied on the wording of Section 125A, which states that its punishment applies “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”.
On these grounds, the bench concluded that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125A need not satisfy the restrictions imposed by Section 195(1) of the CrPC.
Case arose from allegation against Karnataka MLA
The appeal stemmed from a complaint filed by Madki against Beldale, who was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023.
Madki alleged that Beldale had furnished a false declaration concerning his residential address in the affidavit submitted with his nomination papers. He approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru under Section 200 of the CrPC, seeking criminal proceedings for an alleged offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The Karnataka High Court subsequently quashed the complaint. It held that the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the CrPC applied and that the complaint could be initiated only by the Election Commission of India or the concerned public servant, rather than a private individual.
Madki challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, arguing against the legal basis on which the High Court had rejected his complaint.
Beldale raised concerns over frivolous proceedings
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, counsel for Beldale argued that permitting private individuals to file criminal complaints against elected candidates could encourage frivolous litigation and undermine the purpose of Section 125A.
The respondent’s counsel also relied on an Election Commission press note issued in June 2020. The communication stated that the commission would examine complaints pointing to serious omissions in candidates’ affidavits and refer them to investigating authorities on a case-by-case basis.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the commission’s guidelines and press notes could determine the interpretation of the statutory provisions. It said that although the ECI had issued guidance based on its understanding of the law, such communications did not bind courts when interpreting legislation.
“Interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts,” the bench observed.
The court said its conclusion followed from the plain wording of the relevant statutory provisions and did not depend on the ECI’s clarifications.
Supreme Court upholds quashing of complaint on merits
Despite ruling that private complaints under Section 125A are legally maintainable, the Supreme Court did not restore the proceedings against Beldale.
The bench observed that documents placed on record had prima facie rebutted Madki’s allegation concerning the MLA’s residential address. It concluded that the possibility of a conviction appeared remote and that allowing the proceedings to continue would unnecessarily consume judicial time.
The judges therefore upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the complaint, although for reasons different from those relied upon by the High Court.
The court also cautioned against the potential misuse of the legal route it had recognised. It said magistrates were empowered under existing laws to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints or proceedings initiated to harass elected candidates, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The appeal was disposed of on these terms, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.
Lawyers who appeared in the case
For the petitioner, Rajkumar Madki, the legal team comprised Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Advocates Sharanagouda Patil, S. B. Mathapati, Supreeta Sharanagouda, Vinod Kumar Srivastava and Yash S. Tiwari, along with M/s S-Legal Associates, advocates-on-record.
For the respondent, Dr Shailendra Beldale, the legal team comprised Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Advocates Gourish Khashampur, Akhila Wali, Suraj Kaushik, Nanda Kumar K.B., Dharm Singh, Abhishek Kanyalur, Divya Sinha, Ashritsai P. Torgal, Tanya Chhillar and Aryaman Dubey, along with M/s Nuli & Nuli, advocates-on-record.