New Delhi, Oct. 19 -- The Supreme Court has ruled that private individuals can file criminal complaints against elected candidates for allegedly furnishing false information or concealing facts in election affidavits, clarifying that such cases do not require a complaint from a public servant. However, the court declined to revive a complaint against a Karnataka MLA, citing evidence that prima facie rebutted the allegation and the remote possibility of conviction.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which penalises candidates for knowingly providing false information or concealing information in nomination papers or affidavits, is not covered by the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Justice Datta, who authored the judgment, noted that Section 125A was introduced in 2002, while Section 195 of the CrPC was amended in 2006. The legislature did not include Section 125A among the offences for which a complaint must be filed by the concerned public servant.
The bench said the omission must be treated as deliberate, adding that Parliament could have amended Section 195 if it intended to restrict complaints concerning false election affidavits to public servants.
The ruling came on an appeal filed by Rajkumar Madki against a Karnataka High Court order quashing his complaint against Dr Shailendra Beldale, who was elected from the Bidar constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections.
Madki had approached an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru under Section 200 of the CrPC, alleging that Beldale had submitted a false declaration about his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination papers.
The High Court had ruled that only the Election Commission of India or the concerned public servant could initiate such proceedings. Beldale's counsel argued before the Supreme Court that permitting private complaints could expose elected representatives to frivolous litigation. The counsel also cited a June 2020 Election Commission press note outlining how complaints about serious omissions in candidates' affidavits could be examined and referred to investigating agencies.
Rejecting the High Court's interpretation, the Supreme Court said Election Commission guidelines and press notes could not determine how statutory provisions should be interpreted.
"Interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts," the bench observed.
Despite clarifying the law, the court upheld the quashing of Madki's complaint on different grounds. It said documents on record prima facie rebutted the allegation concerning Beldale's address, making a conviction unlikely and further proceedings an unnecessary use of judicial time.
The bench added that magistrates could deal appropriately with frivolous complaints or cases intended to harass elected candidates, depending on the circumstances. The appeal was disposed of, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.