New Delhi: In a judgment likely to strengthen voter-led enforcement of a candidate’s disclosure obligation, the Supreme Court has held that a private complaint can be filed, under the Representation of the People Act (RP) Act, to seek a probe against a candidate for making a false declaration in their nomination form.
A bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta overruled a Karnataka High Court order, which said that a complaint alleging an offence under section 125A of the RP Act needs to satisfy section 195 of the criminal procedure code (CrPC).
Section 195 of CrPC restricts criminal courts (magistrate) from taking direct cognisance of certain specific offences unless a written complaint is formally filed by a designated public servant or the concerned court. It is seen as an exception to the general rule that anyone may set the criminal law in motion. The Supreme Court, however, held to the contrary.
Upon a plain and strict construction of section 195 CrPC, it held that a private complaint for a probe under section 125 of the RP Act need not satisfy the CrPC provision because section 195 CrPC imposes a statutory bar on cognisance of only specified offences.
The provision specifically says that this prohibition is for offences covered under sections 171 to 188 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and related abetment, attempt or conspiracy. Sections 171 to 188 are primarily election offences and contempt of lawful authority of public servants.
In the new Bharatiya Nagarik Sanhita (BNS), these offences are recognised across multiple chapters.
The Supreme Court opined that section 195 CrPC does not mention section 125A of the RP Act. Therefore, courts cannot read into a prohibitory provision an offence the legislature did not list, the top court said in its ruling that is also expected to reinforce the transparency principle enumerated in its previous judgment that made it compulsory for candidates to make a disclosure regarding their assets in their nomination form.
The Supreme Court judgment came on an appeal filed by a Bengaluru resident, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s March 2025 judgment, which quashed a complaint filed by the petitioner before the 42nd additional chief metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru. The complainant had alleged that the respondent, the MLA elected from Bidar in 2023, made a false disclosure of his residential address in the affidavit accompanying his nomination paper.
The High Court had quashed the 2023 complaint, holding that only the Election Commission (or a public servant) could complain under section 125 A of the RP Act, and that a voter’s remedy lies only in an election petition.
Also Read: SIR row has judges divided too. Justice Bhuyan to ex-CJI BR Gavai, who said what
What petitioner, MLA argued in court
The core question argued before the top court was whether section 125A of the RP Act must “pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) Cr.PC,” and whether a private person was competent to file the complaint.
Senior advocates Meenakshi Arora and Sharanagouda Patil argued for the petitioner and said the High Court’s interpretation of section 195 CrPC was erroneous.
On behalf of the MLA, senior advocate Sanjay Nuli appeared. He argued that section 125A was inserted in 2002 following the 2002 Supreme Court judgment in the Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms case. The court had ruled that voters’ right to information about candidates contesting elections is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Nuli claimed since 195 CrPC bars cognisance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned, the same bar should apply to Section 125A.
The requirement for a written complaint under section 195 CrPC was to prevent frivolous litigation and prevent rival candidates from using private persons to file harassing complaints against winners.
He even cited Election Commission of India’s press note from June 2020, which said the poll panel would take cognisance of serious complaints and refer them to investigating authorities. This, he said, meant that only the ECI could file a complaint before the magistrate, as was held by the High Court.
What SC bench said
Though the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s opinion on the legal aspect of section 195 CrPC, it upheld the decision to quash the criminal complaint.
But it was not the same ground as the one given by the High Court.
After perusing the documents, Supreme Court said, prima facie, the MLA had “more than effectively rebutted” allegations made against him. And since conviction in the case is remote, to let proceedings continue for trial before a magistrate would only consume previous judicial time.
On section 195 CrPC, the bench said courts cannot read into a prohibitory provision an offence the legislature did not list. It said section 125A was inserted in August 2002 while section 195 CrPC was amended four years later, in April 2006.
The bench said that the legislature “is presumed to have known of Section 125A when it amended Section 195,” and yet it did not include it in the list of offences of which a magistrate cannot take cognisance without a government official’s endorsement.
It held this legislative omission to be deliberate and, therefore, ruled that there was no enactment barring a private complainant from moving the court for a probe against a candidate.
Besides, it said that a reading of the provision, which starts with the non-obstante clause—“notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”—reinforces that the rigour of Section 195 does not displace a private complaint.
On the ECI’s press note, the bench said since it was non-binding, the court need not rely on clarifications issued by the poll panel.
The court addressed the concern over frivolous complaints by observing that magistrates are empowered by law to pass appropriate orders where a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or contains frivolous allegations. Hence, it added, misuse, if any, is to be dealt with by judicial scrutiny at the magistrate level, not by narrowing the statute.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Setback to Meenakshi Natarajan in SC shows 1952 Ponnuswami ruling still governs India’s election law