Candidate Must Disclose Spouse's Assets In Election Affidavit Even If Not Jointly Held: Supreme Court

"A perusal thereof makes clear that the candidate/declarant is to give details of the property held by them, their spouse and their dependents, including what is held by them jointly. It does not say, in any manner whatsoever, that the property held solely by the spouse is not to be mentioned therein." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that candidates contesting local body elections are legally mandated to disclose all assets owned by their spouse, regardless of whether such properties are held jointly or solely.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the disclosure requirements in election affidavits are intended to ensure the purity of elections and the probity of elected representatives. The Court clarified that the linguistic structure of disclosure rules implies a collective requirement to reveal the assets of the candidate, the spouse, and dependents.

The appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, contested the 2015 Municipal elections in Gujarat for the position of Councillor. A private complaint was filed alleging that she had failed to disclose four immovable properties owned by her husband in her election affidavit. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gandhidham issued summons under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RPA). The appellant’s plea to quash the criminal case was rejected by the Gujarat High Court in 2025, leading to the present appeal before the top court.

The primary question before the court was whether the disclosure requirements under the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules mandate the mention of properties solely owned by a spouse. The Court was also called upon to determine if taking cognizance under the Representation of Peoples Act for a municipal election constituted a jurisdictional error that would vitiate the entire proceeding. Finally, the bench examined the applicability of Section 465 CrPC in saving an irregular cognizance order.

Mandatory Disclosure Of Spouse's Solely Owned Assets

The Court analyzed Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, which requires a candidate to file an affidavit disclosing assets. The appellant contended that the rules only required the disclosure of properties owned jointly with the spouse. However, the Court rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that the requirement to furnish details of assets belongs to the candidate, their spouse, and their dependents as a collective group.

The bench emphasized that the purity of the election process depends on the transparency of the candidate's background. It noted that the State Election Commission’s directions were aimed at preventing candidates from suppressing or furnishing misleading information. The Court observed that voters have a right to know the true extent of the landed property owned by the candidate and their immediate family members to maintain public trust.

The Significance Of The 'Listing Comma' In Legal Interpretation

In a detailed linguistic analysis of the disclosure form, the Court examined the sentence: “the details of the assets... of myself, my spouse and dependents.” The Court noted that the ‘comma’ employed after ‘myself’ is a listing comma used merely to separate items in a list. It held that the word ‘of’ applies equally to ‘myself’, ‘my spouse’, and ‘dependents’, meaning the sentence must be read collectively.

“The ‘comma’ does not create any separate meaning, distinction, or exclusion; it serves only a grammatical and structural function to identify the first item in the series. The appellant, in view of the above, had to have disclosed the properties owned by her spouse too.”

Error In Taking Cognizance Under RPA For Municipal Elections

The Court found that the Trial Judge had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. It agreed with the appellant that the RPA does not apply to the election of a Councillor, which is instead governed by state legislation. However, the Court observed that the well-settled position of law is that an error in taking cognizance under the wrong section is a curable defect.

The bench noted that the private complainant had already mentioned relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the initial complaint. It held that so long as the Court taking cognizance has the power to take notice of the offences under other relevant sections, the mere mention of a wrong statutory provision does not go to the root of the matter or cause a failure of justice.

Scope Of Section 465 CrPC In Saving Irregular Orders

Referencing the precedent in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, the Court discussed the overarching purpose of Section 465 CrPC. It explained that this provision is intended to prevent minor irregularities, which do not go to the root of the case, from delaying legal proceedings. The bench emphasized that the test for determining a failure of justice is whether the irregularity caused actual prejudice to the accused.

“Irregularity of a cognizance order is covered by the provision. The overarching purpose... is to prevent irregularities that do not go to the root of the case from delaying the proceedings. Section 465 is a broad residuary provision that covers all irregularities that are not covered by Sections 461-464.”

Cognizance Is Taken Of The Offence And Not The Person

The Court reiterated the principle that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the person. It held that if a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, it constitutes an offence against society at large that must be investigated. While the initial cognizance under the RPA was technically erroneous, the underlying allegation of filing a false declaration remained a serious matter governed by the IPC.

Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate for taking cognizance afresh under the appropriate laws. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the appellant. The Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with the law to determine if an offence under the IPC was made out regarding the alleged suppression of assets.

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the continuation of the proceedings but set aside the original cognizance order due to the incorrect application of the RPA. By remanding the case, the Court reinforced that the non-disclosure of a spouse’s assets in an election affidavit is a substantive legal violation that cannot be bypassed on technicalities. The ruling settles that "joint ownership" is not a prerequisite for the mandatory disclosure of a spouse's property in local body elections

Date of Decision: July 1, 2026