# Supreme Court: voters can file private complaints over false election affidavits

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-10-20/sc-125a-private-complaint-affidavit/
Date: 20 October 2026 (2026-10-20)
Source: The Hindu, National
UPSC papers: GS2
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** The Supreme Court has held that any voter or private person can ask a magistrate to prosecute a candidate for false or concealed information in election papers under Section 125A of the RPA.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu has held that any private person, including a voter, can file a criminal complaint before a magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). The judgment in Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale was delivered on 16 October 2026. Section 125A punishes a candidate who, with intent to be elected, fails to furnish the information required under Section 33A(1), gives information he knows or has reason to believe is false, or conceals information in the nomination paper or in the affidavit filed with it. The punishment is imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine, or both.

The case began when Madki alleged that Beldale, elected MLA from Bidar in Karnataka in 2023, had given a false residential address in his nomination affidavit. Madki filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court quashed it, holding that Section 195(1) of the CrPC applied, so only the Election Commission of India (ECI) or the public servant concerned could start the case. The Supreme Court disagreed. Clause (a) of Section 195(1) does not list Section 125A. Section 125A was added in 2002 and Section 195 was amended in 2006 without including it, so the Court read the omission as deliberate. It also relied on Section 125A's opening words, which apply the penalty "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force".

The Court said an ECI press note of 16 June 2020 could not narrow who may complain, because "interpretation of statutes is primarily the task of the courts". Beldale's counsel had argued that private complaints would invite frivolous cases against winning candidates. The Bench answered that magistrates can deal with frivolous or harassing complaints on the facts of each case. It then applied that filter itself: documents on record prima facie rebutted the address allegation and a conviction looked remote, so it upheld the High Court's quashing on different grounds and left parties to bear their own costs. The ruling widens who can enforce the affidavit regime that grew out of the Supreme Court's 2002 judgment recognising the voter's right to know about candidates.

## Prelims facts

- Section 125A of the RPA punishes false information or concealment in a nomination paper or Section 33A affidavit with up to six months' imprisonment, a fine, or both.
- In Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale (16 October 2026), Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu held that a private person can file a Section 125A complaint before a magistrate.
- Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, which requires a public servant's complaint for certain offences, does not list Section 125A; the Court read the omission as deliberate.
- An ECI press note of 16 June 2020 cannot limit who may complain, since interpreting statutes is the courts' task.
- The Court still upheld the quashing of this particular complaint because the address allegation was prima facie rebutted.

## Quick recall

- **What does Section 125A of the RPA punish?** Failing to furnish, falsifying or concealing information in a nomination paper or Section 33A affidavit, with intent to be elected.
- **Maximum punishment under Section 125A?** Imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both.
- **Which Bench decided Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale?** Justices Dipankar Datta (author) and Sheel Nagu, on 16 October 2026.
- **Why does Section 195(1) CrPC not bar a private Section 125A complaint?** Clause (a) of Section 195(1) does not list Section 125A, and the 2006 amendment did not add it.
- **Which ECI document did the Court say cannot limit who may complain?** The ECI press note of 16 June 2020.
- **Which court had quashed Madki's complaint first?** The Karnataka High Court, holding only the ECI or a public servant could complain.
- **Which 2002 judgment linked candidate disclosure to Article 19(1)(a)?** Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2 May 2002.
- **Which RPA section did the 2003 PUCL judgment strike down?** Section 33B.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, consider the following statements:
1. It punishes a candidate who conceals information in the affidavit filed with the nomination paper.
2. The maximum imprisonment it prescribes is two years.
3. After the Supreme Court's October 2026 ruling, a complaint under it can be filed only by the Election Commission of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (a) 1 only. Statement 1 is correct: Section 125A covers failing to furnish, falsifying or concealing information in the nomination paper or the Section 33A affidavit. Statement 2 is wrong: the maximum is six months' imprisonment, or fine, or both. Statement 3 is wrong: the Court held that any private person, including a voter, can file the complaint.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2017, GS2: To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful? (https://upsc.help/pyq/q003-enhance-quality-democracy-india-election-commission-india/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use it to show that reforms on truthful disclosure need enforcement, and that the Supreme Court has now let voters themselves prosecute false affidavits.
- UPSC Mains 2019, GS2: On what grounds a people's representative can be disqualified under the Representation of People Act, 1951? Also, mention the remedies available to such a person against his disqualification. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q295-grounds-people-s-representative-can-disqualified-under/)

## Mains practice question

The Supreme Court's ruling that voters can directly prosecute candidates for false election affidavits strengthens the voter's right to know but carries a risk of misuse. Discuss. (150 words)

### Model answer

In *Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale* (October 2026), the Supreme Court held that any private person can file a complaint under Section 125A of the RPA, which punishes false or concealed information in election affidavits.

## How it strengthens the right to know
- The affidavit regime flows from the 2002 *ADR* judgment, which tied disclosure to Article 19(1)(a).
- Enforcement no longer depends only on the ECI or a public servant; Section 195(1)(a) CrPC does not cover Section 125A.
- An ECI press note of June 2020 cannot narrow a statute; courts interpret law.
- Section 125A's "notwithstanding" clause gives the penalty overriding force.

## Risk of misuse
- Losing rivals may file complaints to harass winning candidates, as the respondent argued.
- Magistrates' dockets may swell during election seasons.

## Safeguards
- Magistrates can dismiss frivolous or harassing complaints on facts.
- The Court itself refused to revive this case, as the address allegation was prima facie rebutted.

The ruling widens citizen enforcement while leaving courts a filter, which is the right balance for clean elections.

## The basics

## Why this matters

Indian elections run on disclosure. A voter can judge a candidate only if the papers the candidate files tell the truth, so the law demands sworn affidavits and punishes lies in them. The Supreme Court's October 2026 ruling settles a narrow but important question: who is allowed to start that punishment.

## The disclosure chain

A candidate files a nomination paper under Section 33 of the RPA. With it goes an affidavit, in the format called Form 26, that carries the information Section 33A requires, including pending criminal cases. Section 125A is the stick: knowingly false or concealed information is a criminal offence.

## Who may complain

For some offences, such as contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, Section 195 of the CrPC lets a court act only on a written complaint by the public servant or court concerned. The idea is to stop private parties from turning official matters into personal feuds. The question was whether Section 125A falls in that protected group. Section 195 of the CrPC explains the rule.

## Guarding against misuse

The fear is that losing rivals will file cases to harass winners. The Court's answer is the magistrate. A complaint is not a conviction: it must survive scrutiny on facts. In this very case the Court found the address charge prima facie rebutted and closed it. See Section 125A of the RPA and Voters' right to know for the wider frame.

## Sources

- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/voters-can-file-private-complaints-against-candidates-for-false-affidavits-under-s-125a-of-rp-act-supreme-court-555274
- https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/private-complaints-125a/
- https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/supreme-court-says-voters-can-file-criminal-complaints-against-candidates-over-false-election-affidavits
- https://courtbook.in/representation-of-the-people-act-1951/section-125A
- https://factly.in/voters-right-to-know-trajectory-of-law-on-the-disclosure-of-candidates-criminal-antecedents
- https://theleaflet.in/sc-paves-the-way-for-fadnavis-criminal-prosecution