Why In News?

The Supreme Court in the Rajkumar Madki vs Dr. Shailendra Beldale (2026) case, ruled that any voter can file a criminal complaint before a Magistrate to prosecute electoral candidates for concealing information or filing a false declaration in their election affidavits.

Highlights of Supreme Court Ruling On False Poll Affidavits

Empowerment of Private Citizens: Court established that voters and private individuals have full legal standing under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)] to initiate criminal prosecution against candidates under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act).

Statutory Independence: The court clarified that the penal provision under Section 125A carries a statutory punishment of imprisonment up to 6 months, a fine, or both for knowingly delivering false statements or suppressing material information in nomination papers.

Unrestricted Judicial Cognizance: The ruling eliminates the mandatory prerequisite of an official complaint by a public servant, declaring that voter rights to enforce candidate accountability cannot be blocked by procedural administrative hurdles

Evolution of Voter's Right to Know

Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR, 2002): The Supreme Court established that a voter's Right to Information regarding a candidate's criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications is a fundamental right flowing from freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Statutory Framework Insertions (2002): In response to the ADR judgment, Parliament amended the RP Act, 1951 by inserting Section 33A (Right to Information) and Section 125A (Penalty for false affidavit), while Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 introduced mandatory filing of sworn affidavits in Form 26.

People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court struck down Section 33B of the RP Act (which attempted to override the ADR judgment and ban non-statutory disclosures) as unconstitutional, declaring that the voter's right to know candidate antecedents is a natural constitutional right essential for free and fair elections.

Free Mentorship Need Guidance for UPSC / WBCS / State PSC?
100% Free & Confidential • Quick Callback

Resurgence India vs Election Commission of India (2013): The court ruled that leaving blank columns in Form 26 affidavits violates Article 19(1)(a) and directly triggers Section 125A(i) of the RP Act, empowering Returning Officers to reject incomplete nomination papers.

Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018) & Rambabu Singh Thakur vs Sunil Arora (2020): To curb the criminalization of politics, the court directed political parties and candidates to widely publish pending criminal records at least thrice in newspapers and electronic media, mandating parties to state specific selection criteria other than mere "winnability".

Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil vs K. Madan Mohan Rao (2023): Reaffirmed that the voter's right to make an informed electoral choice is a vital facet of democratic franchise guaranteed under Article 326 and Article 19(1)(a).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's verdict reinforces democratic accountability under Article 19(1)(a) by placing the power to prosecute false poll affidavits directly in the hands of voters rather than making electoral transparency dependent on administrative discretion.

Source: THEHINDUBUSINESSLINE

PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. Consider the following statements regarding Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:

  1. It penalizes candidates for knowingly furnishing false information or concealing material facts in nomination papers.

  2. Cognizance of offences under Section 125A requires mandatory prior written permission from the Election Commission of India under Section 195 of the CrPC.

  3. The provision was inserted into the Representation of the People Act, 1951, following the landmark Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) judgment.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c)

Explanation:

Statement 1 is correct: Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides penal measures (imprisonment up to six months, a fine, or both) for candidates who knowingly conceal material facts, furnish false information, or fail to provide mandatory information in their nomination papers or election affidavits. 

Statement 2 is incorrect: Taking cognizance of offences under Section 125A does not require prior written permission from the Election Commission of India (ECI). In a landmark ruling (Rajkumar Madki v. Dr. Shailendra Beldale), the Supreme Court clarified that the restrictions of Section 195(1) of the CrPC—which mandates complaints to be filed by a public servant—do not apply to Section 125A. Therefore, private citizens/voters can directly file a criminal complaint against candidates for filing false affidavits.

Statement 3 is correct: Section 125A (along with Section 33A) was inserted into the Act via an amendment in 2002. This statutory change came directly in response to the landmark Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 2002 judgment, where the Supreme Court ruled that voters have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to know the criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications of contesting candidates.