The Supreme Court has held that voters can prosecute candidates for withholding information

In a ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that ordinary private citizens can file criminal charges against candidates for providing false information or concealing information when submitting candidate lists for elections.

The judgment by Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said the law does not insist that only civil servants or competent authorities can file complaints against election candidates.

The court’s judgment empowers the vigilant citizen-voter with active legitimacy to directly intervene against dishonesty in electoral politics and ensure transparency in polls from the stage of submitting nominations. Candidates must submit personal affidavits along with their nominations. Senior advocate Sanjay Nuli, appearing in the case, pointed out that these affidavits were part of legislative efforts to keep elections clean and a healthy democracy. Voters must be educated and well informed about the candidates running, including their assets, education and criminal antecedents. Concealment of personal information or giving false information to deceive voters was made a non-cognizable and chargeable offense under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section provides that the offender shall face imprisonment for six months, fine or both.

Justice Datta interpreted that the strictness of Section 195 of the Criminal Code (CrPC) that the court must take cognizance only of a complaint filed by a public servant did not affect Section 125-A of the 1951 Act.

“If it was really the legislator’s intention that the recognition of any criminal offense related to the provision of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with the intention of being elected in the election could only be admitted if the complainant was a civil servant, the same could be ensured by an amendment to Section 195 of the Civil Code.

Section 125-A was inserted into the 1951 Act in August 2002. Although the legislature was likely aware of Section 125-A when it amended Section 195 in April 2006, it did not provide that Section 125-A should be subject to the limitations under Section 195.

“No court would be precluded from taking cognizance of an alleged offense under Section 125-A, even on a complaint filed by a private person. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that there is no provision in any statute which provides that a complaint for an offense under Section 125-A can be filed only by a public servant,” said Justice Datta, who authored the judgment.

The Supreme Court further pointed out that Section 125-A and its penalty for falsity shall prevail “notwithstanding what is for the time being in force in any other law”.

Published – 23 Oct 2026 21:46 IST