Background of the Appeal
The matter arose from criminal proceedings initiated against Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, who contested the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat. A Magistrate took cognizance of the case under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), which penalises the filing of false affidavits or the concealment of material particulars in election documents. The Gujarat High Court declined to quash the proceedings, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Court
The appellant’s primary contention was that the RPA, by its very terms, governs only elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and has no application to municipal elections, which are regulated by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994. It was argued that invoking Section 125A of the RPA in relation to a municipal poll was therefore legally untenable.
Court’s Examination of the Statutory Definition
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, examined the definition of “election” provided in Section 2(d) of the Representation of the People Act. The Court observed that the definition expressly limits the Act’s application to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures. Consequently, the Court held that Section 125A of the RPA could not be invoked in respect of a municipal election.
Availability of Alternative Penal Remedy
While rejecting the applicability of the RPA, the Court clarified that this Court emphasised that filing a false affidavit in a municipal election remained an offence. The Bench turned to the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, which did not render the act of filing a false affidavit immune from criminal liability. It examined the Gujarat Municipalities Act and noted that earlier versions of the statute contained penal provisions for false declarations, but those provisions were removed by legislative amendments in 1990. The Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, however, continue to require candidates to submit affidavits disclosing assets, liabilities, educational qualifications and other particulars for “myself, my spouse and dependents”. In the absence of a specific penal provision in the municipal statute, the Court held that the controlling provisions would be those of the Indian Penal Code.
Interpretation of the Affidavit Format
The Court also addressed the appellant’s submission that she was not required to disclose properties exclusively owned by her husband. Interpreting the prescribed affidavit format, the Bench held that the phrase “myself, my spouse and dependents” creates a list where the word “of” applies equally to each item. The comma after “myself” merely separates the elements of the list and does not restrict disclosure to jointly owned property. Accordingly, assets solely owned by the spouse must also be disclosed.
Procedural Irregularity and Curability
The Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 125A of the RPA, a provision the Court found inapplicable. The Bench held that such an error constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provided that no failure of justice has resulted. Relying on earlier precedents, the Court reiterated that “cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the person”, and that a mistake in citing the penal provision at the cognizance stage does not automatically invalidate the proceedings.
Operative Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the cognizance order passed under the Representation of the People Act and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to take fresh cognizance under the appropriate provisions of law—either the Indian Penal Code or any applicable municipal penal provision—and to proceed afresh. The Bench expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations, but observed that if a false affidavit has been filed during the electoral process, “that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated.”
Significance of the Ruling
The decision delineates the boundary between the general electoral law embodied in the Representation of the People Act and the specialised regime governing municipal elections. It affirms that while the RPA’s penal machinery does not extend to local body polls, the integrity of the electoral process remains protected through the general criminal law, ensuring that candidates cannot evade liability for false disclosures simply because the municipal statute lacks a specific penalty.