SC Allows Citizens to File Complaints Against Candidates Over False Election Affidavits

The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens can file criminal complaints against elected candidates for allegedly furnishing false information, concealing material facts or failing to make mandatory disclosures in election affidavits, strengthening the legal avenues available to voters seeking greater accountability in the electoral process.

In a judgment delivered on October 16, 2026, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not prevent private individuals from initiating complaints under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The ruling clarifies that such complaints need not be filed exclusively by the Election Commission of India or another authorised public authority.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Rajkumar Madki, a resident of Manhalli in Karnataka's Bidar district, against Shailendra Beldale, an MLA elected from Bidar in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election. Madki alleged that Beldale had falsely declared his residential address in an affidavit accompanying his nomination papers. He filed a criminal complaint before a Bengaluru magistrate on August 21, 2023, under Section 200 of the CrPC.

The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint on March 7, 2025, holding that proceedings could be initiated only through the Election Commission and suggesting that Madki could pursue an election petition. The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, noting that Section 125A was not included among the offences covered by Section 195's restrictions. Parliament introduced Section 125A in 2002 and amended Section 195 in 2006 without including the election-related offence, which the bench treated as a deliberate omission.

Section 125A penalises specified failures to disclose mandatory information, knowingly providing false details or concealing prescribed information. It carries imprisonment of up to six months, a fine, or both. The ruling builds on earlier judgments, including Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), which recognised voters' right to information about candidates under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.