Home > Recent Judgements >REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF ELECTION LAW AND FALSE AFFIDAVIT PROSECUTION
July-02- 2026
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES SCOPE OF ELECTION LAW AND FALSE AFFIDAVIT PROSECUTION
Introduction
In a significant judgment concerning election law and criminal liability arising from local body elections, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) applies exclusively to elections conducted for Parliament and State Legislatures and does not extend to municipal elections.
The decision, delivered in CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER, resolves an important question regarding the prosecution of candidates accused of filing false election affidavits during municipal elections. While the Court ruled that the penal provisions of the RPA cannot be invoked in such cases, it simultaneously emphasized that candidates are not immune from prosecution, as appropriate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 may still apply where the relevant municipal legislation does not prescribe penal consequences.
The judgment reinforces the principle that transparency in electoral disclosures is essential across all democratic institutions while ensuring that criminal proceedings are initiated under the correct statutory framework.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, contested the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat. As part of the nomination process, candidates were required to submit an affidavit disclosing various personal details, including:
- Movable and immovable assets;
- Liabilities;
- Educational qualifications;
- Criminal antecedents, if any; and
- Financial information relating to themselves, their spouse, and dependents.
A private complaint was subsequently filed alleging that the appellant had deliberately suppressed information relating to immovable properties owned exclusively by her husband.
Acting on the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which criminalises furnishing false information or concealing material particulars in election affidavits.
The appellant challenged the proceedings before the Gujarat High Court, seeking quashing of the complaint. The High Court declined to interfere, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Principal Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The central issue was straightforward yet legally significant:
“Can Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 be invoked against a candidate contesting municipal elections?”
The answer depended upon the statutory scope of the Representation of the People Act itself.
Statutory Framework of the Representation of the People Act
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is the principal legislation governing:
- Elections to the Lok Sabha;
- Elections to the Rajya Sabha;
- Elections to State Legislative Assemblies; and
- Elections to State Legislative Councils.
Section 2(d) of the Act defines the expression “election” in a restricted manner.
The Supreme Court carefully examined this definition and observed that the Act is confined only to elections relating to Parliament and State Legislatures.
Municipal elections, on the other hand, derive their legal authority from:
- Part IX-A of the Constitution of India;
- State Municipal Acts; and
- Rules framed under those Acts.
In Gujarat, municipal elections are regulated by:
- Gujarat Municipalities Act, and
- Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994.
Consequently, the penal provisions contained in the Representation of the People Act cannot automatically be extended to local body elections.
Supreme Court's Findings
- Representation of the People Act Does Not Apply to Municipal Elections –
The Supreme Court categorically held that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act has no application whatsoever to municipal elections.
Since the statutory definition of “election” under the RPA is expressly confined to Parliamentary and Legislative Assembly elections, the Magistrate committed an error by invoking Section 125A against the appellant.
Accordingly, the cognizance order under the Representation of the People Act was set aside.
- Filing a False Affidavit in Municipal Elections Is Still an Offence –
The Court clarified that the inapplicability of the Representation of the People Act does not provide immunity to candidates who furnish false election affidavits.
The Bench examined the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 and noted that every candidate is legally required to disclose complete information regarding:
- Assets;
- Liabilities;
- Educational qualifications;
- Criminal cases;
- Other prescribed particulars.
Although earlier versions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act contained penal provisions for making false declarations, those provisions had been omitted through legislative amendments in 1990.
In the absence of a specific penal provision under the municipal law, the Court held that criminal liability may arise under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code dealing with false declarations, furnishing false information, or other applicable offences depending upon the facts of each case.
Thus, candidates remain legally accountable for false disclosures even though the Representation of the People Act does not govern municipal elections.
- Wrong Mention of Statutory Provision Does Not Invalidate Proceedings –
One of the important procedural questions before the Court was whether criminal proceedings become invalid merely because the Magistrate invoked an incorrect statutory provision.
The appellant argued that once Section 125A was found inapplicable, the entire proceedings deserved to be quashed.
The Supreme Court rejected this contention.
Referring to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that procedural mistakes which do not result in a failure of justice are curable irregularities.
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle:
“Cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender.”
Therefore, an incorrect reference to a penal provision at the stage of taking cognizance does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings if the factual allegations disclose the commission of an offence under another applicable law.
- Assets of the Spouse Must Be Fully Disclosed –
Another important aspect of the judgment relates to the interpretation of disclosure obligations in election affidavits.
The appellant contended that she was not required to disclose properties that were exclusively owned by her husband.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The prescribed affidavit format required disclosure of assets relating to:
“Myself, my spouse and dependents.”
The Court analysed the grammatical structure of the declaration and held that the word “of” qualifies each category individually.
Therefore, the obligation extends to:
- Assets owned by the candidate;
- Assets exclusively owned by the spouse; and
- Assets owned by dependents.
The Court rejected the argument that disclosure was limited only to jointly owned properties.
This interpretation strengthens the objective of ensuring complete financial transparency in the electoral process.
Constitutional Perspective
The judgment is also consistent with the broader constitutional philosophy governing elections.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that voters possess a fundamental right to know relevant information about candidates contesting elections. This principle flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Transparent disclosure enables voters to make informed electoral choices.
Although municipal elections are regulated by separate legislation, the democratic objective of truthful disclosure remains equally significant.
The present judgment therefore balances two important principles:
- Criminal prosecution must be based upon the correct statutory framework.
- Electoral transparency cannot be compromised merely because of legislative omissions.
Why This Judgment Is Important
The ruling has several important legal implications.
Correct Interpretation of Election Laws
The decision draws a clear distinction between Parliamentary elections governed by the Representation of the People Act and local body elections governed by State municipal laws.
This eliminates uncertainty regarding the applicability of penal provisions under the RPA.
Strengthening Electoral Transparency
Candidates contesting municipal elections continue to bear a legal obligation to make truthful disclosures.
False declarations may still invite criminal prosecution under applicable provisions of criminal law.
Guidance for Magistrates
The judgment provides useful guidance to trial courts regarding:
- Proper statutory provisions;
- Jurisdiction while taking cognizance;
- Curable procedural defects; and
- The distinction between technical errors and substantive illegality.
Uniform Standard of Disclosure
The Court has reinforced that disclosure requirements extend not only to the candidate’s own assets but also to those of the spouse and dependents.
This interpretation promotes greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
It:
- Set aside the Magistrate’s cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951;
- Held that the Representation of the People Act does not govern municipal elections;
- Clarified that prosecution may continue under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other applicable law;
- Remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration under the correct legal provisions; and
- Clarified that it had expressed no opinion regarding the factual merits of the allegations.
The Court observed that if a candidate has indeed filed a false affidavit during the electoral process, such conduct constitutes an offence against society and deserves proper investigation and adjudication.
Conclusion
The judgment in CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER is an important precedent delineating the statutory boundaries of the Representation of the People Act while simultaneously preserving the integrity of local democratic institutions.
By holding that the RPA does not extend to municipal elections, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of legislative interpretation based on the express language of the statute. At the same time, by permitting prosecution under the Indian Penal Code where appropriate, the Court has ensured that candidates cannot escape accountability for false electoral disclosures merely because of gaps in municipal legislation.
The decision strikes a careful balance between statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, and the overarching constitutional commitment to transparent and informed democratic governance. It serves as a valuable precedent for election authorities, criminal courts, legal practitioners, and candidates participating in local body elections across India, emphasizing that while the source of criminal liability may differ, the duty of honesty in electoral declarations remains unwavering.