New Delhi, Oct. 21 -- The Supreme Court has ruled that any private person can approach a magistrate with a criminal complaint against an elected representative for allegedly filing a false affidavit in an election, holding that such complaints do not require prior sanction or a complaint by the Election Commission of India (ECI) or any other public servant. Underscoring that the interpretation of laws is the exclusive domain of courts, a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said that ECI cannot dictate how statutory provisions should be interpreted through its press notes or guidelines, even though it is the constitutional authority responsible for conducting elections. "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. The court pointed out that the possibility of such complaints being used to harass elected representatives can be duly dealt with under the existing regime, emphasising that magistrates are empowered to deal with frivolous allegations in accordance with the law. "If at all a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or frivolous allegations are levelled therein, the laws of the country duly equip and empower the competent magistrates to pass such order(s) as they deem fit and proper commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case," it said. The court's ruling is significant because the disclosure of candidates' assets, educational qualifications and criminal antecedents are intended to help voters make informed electoral choices. Section 125A was introduced following the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Union of India Vs Association for Democratic Reforms which underscored the importance of voters having access to relevant information about candidates. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Rajkumar Madki against a Karnataka high court decision quashing his criminal complaint against Bidar MLA Shailendra Beldale, who was elected to the Karnataka legislative assembly in 2023. Madki had alleged that Beldale furnished a false residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination papers. While settling the legal question in favour of private complainants, the Supreme Court declined to revive the proceedings against Beldale, holding that the documents on record had effectively rebutted the allegation and that the possibility of conviction was remote. The legal question arose from Section 125A of the Representation of the People (RoP) Act, 1951, which penalises a candidate who, with the intention of getting elected, fails to furnish prescribed information, knowingly provides false information or conceals information required in the nomination paper or accompanying affidavit. The offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both. The high court had held that a complaint alleging an offence under this provision had to satisfy Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which bars courts from taking cognisance of specified offences unless a written complaint is made by the public servant concerned or another public servant to whom that official is administratively subordinate. On this reasoning, it concluded that the ECI, rather than an individual voter, had to initiate the criminal proceedings. The top court pointed out that Section 195 covers offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC, 1860, but does not include Section 125A of the election law....