Every nomination paper in an Indian election travels with a sworn affidavit — assets, liabilities, criminal antecedents, and the candidate's particulars. Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 makes false disclosure in that affidavit an offence. But who may set the criminal law in motion? In its judgment of 16 October 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 3387 of 2026, the Supreme Court answered the question that had divided practice: an ordinary citizen's complaint before a Magistrate is maintainable, and the gatekeeping bar of Section 195 CrPC — which reserves certain prosecutions to courts and public authorities — does not apply.
How the case arose
The respondent was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Bidar constituency in 2023. The appellant lodged a private complaint dated 21 August 2023 under Section 200 CrPC before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (PCR No. 9254 of 2023, later CC No. 29813 of 2023), alleging that the respondent had given a false residential address in his nomination affidavit — an offence under Section 125A. The respondent moved the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 7458 of 2024, and by judgment of 7 March 2025 the High Court quashed the complaint, holding that the offence attracted Section 195(1) CrPC, so that only the Election Commission could set the law in motion. The Supreme Court granted leave on 20 July 2026.
The legal question: who guards the affidavit?
High Court's view
A false statement in an election affidavit is akin to offences against public justice; Section 195(1) CrPC applies, and a private complaint is barred — the Election Commission alone may complain.
Supreme Court's holding
Section 125A is deliberately omitted from the list in Section 195 CrPC. The rigour of Section 195 does not apply to a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging a Section 125A offence; no court is barred from taking cognizance on such a complaint.
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, grounded the conclusion in the statutory text. Section 195 CrPC is an exhaustive, strictly construed exception to the ordinary rule that anyone can set the criminal law in motion; offences outside its enumeration remain governed by the ordinary rule. Section 125A, with its non-obstante opening, creates a freestanding electoral offence that Parliament chose not to route through any designated complainant. The Court also held that press notes or administrative positions of the Election Commission cannot control the interpretation of the statute. The High Court was, in the Court's words, clearly in error in returning the finding that it did.
Winning the point, not the case
The judgment then took a turn familiar to Supreme Court practice under Article 136: the declaration of law was divorced from the fate of the litigation. Examining the record, the Court found the specific allegation — that the disclosed residential address was false — had been more than effectively rebutted by the respondent's material, making the prospect of conviction remote. Reviving a complaint destined to fail would serve no one. The closure of proceedings before the trial Magistrate was therefore upheld, but expressly for reasons different from those assigned by the High Court, and the appeal was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.
This structure — correcting the High Court's law while sustaining its result — illustrates a recurring feature of Article 136 jurisdiction: the Supreme Court sits to settle principle, not merely to referee outcomes. A litigant can lose the appeal yet change the law; the respondent keeps his victory, while every future complainant inherits the corrected rule.
The practical map after Madki
Affidavit scrutiny
A voter examines the Form 26 affidavit filed with the nomination — assets, liabilities, cases, particulars.
Private complaint
A complaint under Section 200 CrPC / Section 223 BNSS is filed before the competent Magistrate alleging the Section 125A offence, with supporting material.
Magistrate's filter
Cognizance, examination of the complainant, and the Section 202 CrPC / Section 225 BNSS inquiry remain fully applicable — the bar is gone, the burden is not.
Trial on merits
Conviction still requires proof of a false statement or concealment in the affidavit; rebutted or trivial allegations will fail, as this very case shows.
Two cautions complete the picture. First, Section 125A punishes falsity in the nomination affidavit; it is distinct from an election petition under Section 100 of the RP Act, which challenges the election itself and runs on its own strict timelines before the High Court. A criminal complaint is not a substitute for an election petition. Second, the judgment does not convert election season into open season: the Magistrate's scrutiny at the cognizance stage remains the filter against vexatious complaints, and this case — where the law point was won but the complaint stayed closed — is itself the demonstration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 125A of the RP Act?
It penalises a candidate who fails to furnish information, or gives false information, or conceals information, in the nomination paper or the accompanying affidavit required under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. It is the criminal enforcement arm of the voter's right to know who is seeking their vote.
Why was Section 195 CrPC thought to be a hurdle?
Section 195(1) CrPC bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences — including those relating to documents given in evidence and contempts of public servants' lawful authority — except on the written complaint of the public servant or court concerned. The Karnataka High Court had reasoned that a false election affidavit fell in that protected zone, so only the Election Commission could complain. The Supreme Court disagreed: Section 125A is deliberately omitted from Section 195, and its non-obstante language supports an independent, freestanding offence.
Did the complainant win the case?
On the law, yes; on the outcome, no. The Court held the High Court erred in applying Section 195, but still declined to revive this particular complaint, finding the allegation about the false residential address had been more than effectively rebutted on the record and the prospect of conviction was remote. The closure of proceedings was upheld for reasons different from the High Court's.
What does this mean for future complaints?
A voter or other private person can file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC (now Section 223 BNSS) before the competent Magistrate alleging a Section 125A offence, without first approaching the Election Commission. The complaint must still survive the Magistrate's scrutiny on merits — this judgment removes a threshold bar, it does not dilute the burden of proof.