New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that voters and other private individuals can file criminal complaints against election candidates for allegedly submitting false information or hiding important facts in their election affidavits.
The Supreme Court ruling on false election affidavits clarifies that the Election Commission of India is not the only authority through which such complaints can be initiated. However, the Court did not reopen the specific criminal proceedings against Karnataka MLA Dr. Shailendra Beldale.
False Election Affidavits: Supreme Court Clarifies Voters’ Right To File Complaints
On October 16, 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu delivered the judgment in Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale.
Read also: Why Are 42 Former Judges Supporting The Election Commission In India?
The Court examined whether a private individual could file a criminal complaint against an elected candidate for allegedly providing false information in an election affidavit under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The judgment clarified that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not prevent private individuals from filing such complaints. A complaint under Section 125A does not have to be filed exclusively by the Election Commission or a public servant.
What Is Section 125A Of The Representation Of The People Act
Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deals with penalties for providing false information, hiding information or failing to disclose certain required details in election nomination papers and affidavits.
The provision aims to ensure that candidates provide the information required by law when contesting elections.
Under this section, a candidate found guilty of the specified offence can face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that private citizens can seek criminal action when they believe a candidate has committed an offence under this provision. However, filing a complaint does not automatically prove that the candidate has committed a crime.
Why Did The False Election Affidavits Case Reach The Supreme Court
The case began when Rajkumar Madki filed a criminal complaint against Dr. Shailendra Beldale, who was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023.
Madki alleged that Beldale had provided a false declaration about his residential address in an affidavit submitted with his election nomination papers.
In August 2023, Madki filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru under Section 200 of the CrPC, alleging an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. Beldale challenged the complaint before the Karnataka High Court.
On March 7, 2025, the High Court quashed the criminal complaint. It held that the restrictions under Section 195(1) of the CrPC applied and that the complaint could not be initiated by a private individual in these circumstances. Madki then challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Why Did The Supreme Court Reject The High Court’s Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation of Section 195 of the CrPC. Section 195 restricts criminal courts from taking up certain offences unless a complaint is made by the public servant or court specified by law. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this restriction does not cover an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The bench explained that Section 125A does not require a complaint to be filed exclusively by the Election Commission or another public authority. Therefore, a private individual can approach the competent magistrate with a complaint alleging an offence under this section.
The Court also clarified that guidelines and press notes issued by the Election Commission cannot override the courts’ responsibility to interpret the law.
Supreme Court Does Not Reopen The Case Against Beldale
Although the Supreme Court disagreed with the Karnataka High Court’s legal reasoning, it did not restore the criminal proceedings against Beldale.
The bench observed that the allegation concerning Beldale’s residential address had been effectively rebutted by the documents available on record. It also found that the possibility of conviction appeared remote.
The Court considered that allowing the proceedings to continue would consume judicial time without a sufficient basis for doing so. Consequently, it upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the complaint, but for different reasons.
This distinction is important: the Supreme Court recognised the legal right of private individuals to file complaints under Section 125A, but it did not find it appropriate to revive Madki’s specific complaint against Beldale.
Can Voters File False Affidavit Complaints Against Any Candidate
The judgment makes it clear that a private individual does not necessarily need the Election Commission to initiate a criminal complaint alleging an offence under Section 125A. However, this does not mean that every allegation against an election candidate will result in criminal proceedings or a conviction.
The complaint must be considered according to the applicable law and the evidence available. The competent magistrate has the authority to deal with the complaint based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court also warned that the legal system provides magistrates with the power to deal appropriately with frivolous complaints or proceedings intended to harass elected candidates. This safeguard is important because the right to file a complaint should not be misused to target political representatives without a proper legal basis.
Read also: Why This Supreme Court Judgment Could Change Human Rights Litigation In India
FAQs
Under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a candidate found guilty of the specified offence can face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine, or both.
Yes. The Supreme Court has clarified that private individuals can file criminal complaints alleging an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The complaint does not have to be initiated exclusively by the Election Commission.
No. The Supreme Court upheld the decision to quash the complaint against Dr. Shailendra Beldale, but for different reasons. It found that the allegation had been rebutted by documents on record and that the possibility of conviction appeared remote.
