Back
False Municipal Poll Affidavits Are Prosecutable Under IPC:
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of election laws, the of India has held that Section 125A of the (RPA) cannot be invoked to prosecute candidates for filing false affidavits in municipal elections. However, the Bench emphasized that this does not grant candidates immunity, as such acts remain punishable under provisions of the (IPC).
A Dispute Over Hidden Assets The case originated from a filed against Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, a councillor candidate in the municipal elections. The complainant alleged that the appellant had suppressed the ownership of several landed properties belonging to her husband in her . While the in Gandhidham had issued summons under the RPA, the appellant sought to , eventually reaching the .
Legal Questions and Arguments The appellant's counsel argued that the RPA exclusively governs elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, not local municipal bodies, which are instead regulated by the . Furthermore, the defence contended that disclosure rules only applied to joint assets, not those solely owned by a spouse.
The State and the complainant argued that suppressing facts in a constitutes a serious offence against the purity of the electoral process. They maintained that even if Section 125A of the RPA was cited erroneously, the court retained the power to continue proceedings under the applicable provisions of the IPC, citing the doctrine that "."
The Court’s Reasoning
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, accepted that the RPA does not apply to municipal polls. However, they dismissed the notion that such irregularities in filing an affidavit are beyond the reach of the law. Regarding the interpretation of asset disclosure forms, the Court clarified that the requirement to disclose assets of
"myself, my spouse and dependents"
is comprehensive.
"The word 'of' applies equally to 'myself', 'my spouse' and 'dependents'—the sentence is to be read collectively as referring to the assets of all three categories,"
the Court noted.
Key Observations
*
On :
"The well-settled position of law is that the error in taking
under the wrong Section is, in fact a
so long as the Court that has taken
has the power to take
of the other Sections also."
*
On :
"It is a well settled principle of law that
is taken of the offence and not people."
*
On :
"If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated."
Decision and Implications The set aside the original order of the Magistrate, which had erroneously invoked Section 125A of the RPA. Crucially, rather than quashing the case, the Court remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The Magistrate is now tasked with re-evaluating the complaint under the appropriate provisions of the .
This judgment serves as a stern reminder to candidates in local body elections that they remain legally accountable for the transparency and accuracy of their electoral filings. By categorizing the incorrect citation of a statute as a "" under , the Court has ensured that technical errors do not provide an escape route for candidates accused of subverting the democratic process through dishonesty.
