Representation Of People Act | Private Complaint By Voter Maintainable For False Nomination Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC Bar Inapplicable: Supreme Court

"It stands to reason that omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195, Cr. PC is deliberate and no court, in terms of the latter provision, would be barred from taking cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, even on the complaint lodged by a private person." Supreme Court, in an authoritative ruling delivered on October 16, 2026, held that a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is maintainable under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and does not attract the statutory bar of Section 195(1) CrPC.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu clarified that prosecution for filing a false affidavit during elections is not reserved exclusively for the Election Commission or public servants, overruling the contrary view adopted by the Karnataka High Court.

The appellant lodged a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, alleging that the respondent, an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Bidar, furnished false information regarding his residential address in his nomination affidavit under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings on the ground that an offence under Section 125-A must satisfy the rigours of Section 195(1) CrPC, which permits prosecution only on a written complaint by the Election Commission or concerned public servant. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

The primary question before the court was whether Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must pass muster under the rigours of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bench was called upon to determine whether a private person can maintain a complaint under Section 200 CrPC against an elected candidate for an offence

Statutory Prohibition Under Section 195(1) CrPC Does Not Extend To Section 125-A RoP Act

The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between Section 195(1)(a) CrPC and Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Justice Dipankar Datta, penning the judgment for the bench, pointed out that Section 195(1)(a) imposes a statutory embargo on taking cognizance only in respect of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or their abetment, attempt, or conspiracy. The bench observed that the provision does not encompass Section 125-A of the RoP Act within its explicit statutory text.

Legislative Omission To Include Section 125-A In Section 195 CrPC Was Deliberate

The bench emphasized the legislative timeline to decipher the intent of Parliament. It was highlighted that Section 125-A was inserted into the RoP Act with effect from August 24, 2002, following the landmark ruling in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, while Section 195 CrPC underwent statutory amendments later in April 2006. The court reasoned that Parliament was fully aware of Section 125-A and consciously chose not to insert it into Section 195 CrPC.

"The legislature is presumed to be conscious of its insertion of Section 125-A in the RoP Act four years back. It stands to reason that omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195, Cr. PC is deliberate."

Non-Obstante Clause In Section 125-A Overrides External Procedural Bars

The court further bolstered its interpretation by pointing out that Section 125-A itself contains an overriding non-obstante clause. Under the terms of the provision, anyone who fails to furnish information, gives false information, or conceals information in the nomination affidavit "shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

The bench observed that this statutory phrasing makes it abundantly clear that no external embargo, including Section 195 CrPC, restricts the court from taking cognizance on a private complaint filed under Section 200 CrPC. The High Court was therefore found to be clearly in error in holding that only the Election Commission could initiate such a complaint.

ECI Press Notes And Circulars Cannot Override Judicial Statutory Interpretation

Addressing the respondent's reliance on Election Commission of India guidelines and a Press Note dated June 16, 2020, the bench affirmed that executive guidelines cannot control statutory interpretation. The judges remarked that while the ECI remains supreme within its constitutional sphere, interpreting statutes is primarily the constitutional function of the judiciary.

"Even though the ECI is supreme in its own sphere and has, indeed, issued guidelines/press notes based on its understanding of the statutory provisions, interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts and such guidelines/press notes do not bind us."

Magistrates Duly Empowered To Filter Out Frivolous Or Vexatious Complaints

Responding to concerns raised by the respondent that allowing private complaints would lead to harassment of elected representatives through frivolous litigation, the court held that trial magistrates are adequately equipped with procedural safeguards. The bench held that competent magistrates possess sufficient statutory powers to dismiss unmerited or vexatious complaints at the threshold.

Quashing Of Complaint Upheld On Factual Merits To Prevent Futile Litigation

Notwithstanding the correction of the legal position, the Supreme Court declined to revive the criminal proceedings against the respondent MLA. Upon scrutinizing the documents on record, the bench noted that the allegation regarding a false residential address was effectively rebutted and the prospect of conviction was remote. The court concluded that remanding the case to the trial magistrate would only consume precious judicial time, thereby sustaining the final outcome of the quashing order on merits alone.

The Supreme Court settled the law by holding that a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC for an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act is fully maintainable and immune from the procedural fetters of Section 195(1) CrPC. However, on the factual matrix, the bench affirmed the quashing of proceedings against the respondent due to lack of merit in the allegations.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2026