Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026

The appellant contested the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat.

A complaint alleged that she had failed to disclose certain immovable properties owned exclusively by her husband.

The allegation concerned suppression of material information in the election affidavit.

A Magistrate took cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The appellant challenged the criminal proceedings before the Gujarat High Court.

The High Court declined to quash the proceedings.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court.

She argued that the RPA applies to elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, not municipal elections.

The Supreme Court examined the statutory definition of “election” under Section 2(d) of the RPA.

The Court agreed that the RPA does not govern municipal elections.

Consequently, Section 125A RPA could not be invoked for the alleged false affidavit in a municipal election.

However, the Court found that this did not necessarily make the alleged conduct immune from criminal prosecution.

The Gujarat Municipalities election rules required candidates to disclose assets and other particulars.

The Court noted that the municipal legislation did not contain an applicable penal provision for the alleged false declaration.

The Court therefore held that the IPC could apply to such conduct.

The Court also examined the prescribed affidavit requiring disclosure of assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents.”

It held that assets exclusively owned by the spouse were also required to be disclosed.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the cognizance order under the RPA and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance under the appropriate law.

The Supreme Court held that the Representation of the People Act does not apply to municipal elections.

Section 125A RPA therefore could not validly form the basis for prosecution concerning the alleged false municipal-election affidavit.

The Court nevertheless clarified that false declarations in municipal election affidavits can attract criminal liability under the applicable penal law.

Since the municipal election rules required disclosure of specified assets but did not contain the relevant penal provision, the IPC could govern the alleged offence.

The Court held that the Magistrate's error in taking cognizance under Section 125A did not necessarily terminate the proceedings.

Such an error can constitute a curable irregularity where no failure of justice has resulted.

The Court reiterated that cognizance is taken of an offence, rather than of a particular person or merely a particular statutory label.

The Court also held that the affidavit requirement covered assets belonging exclusively to the candidate's spouse.

The Supreme Court therefore set aside the cognizance order under the RPA.

The matter was remanded to the Magistrate to take fresh cognizance under the appropriate provisions and proceed in accordance with law.

The Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

Statutory boundaries: The Court firmly maintained the distinction between elections governed by the RPA and municipal elections governed by state municipal legislation.

Section 125A limitation: Section 125A cannot be extended beyond the elections covered by the RPA merely because similar disclosure requirements exist in municipal elections.

False affidavit is not immune: The Court's ruling does not create immunity for candidates who allegedly submit false information. It merely identifies the correct statutory source of criminal liability.

Role of municipal election rules: The Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules required candidates to make specified disclosures. Those disclosure obligations remain legally significant even though Section 125A RPA does not apply.

IPC as applicable penal law: In the absence of a specific municipal penal provision, the Court recognised the possibility of prosecution under applicable IPC provisions concerning false declarations or evidence.

Cognizance of offence: The principle that “cognizance is taken of the offence and not people” is important. A Magistrate's incorrect statutory reference does not necessarily destroy proceedings where the underlying conduct may constitute an offence under another provision.

Section 465 CrPC: The Court applied the principle that procedural errors should not automatically invalidate proceedings unless they result in a failure of justice.

Disclosure of spouse's assets: The Court adopted a straightforward reading of the affidavit format. The phrase “myself, my spouse and dependents” requires disclosure of the assets belonging to each category.

Comma argument rejected: The appellant's argument that the wording limited disclosure to jointly owned property was rejected. The punctuation did not alter the substantive requirement to disclose assets of the candidate, spouse and dependents separately.

Electoral transparency: The decision reinforces the importance of truthful disclosure by candidates. Election affidavits are intended to provide voters and authorities with relevant information about candidates' financial circumstances.

Public interest: The Court observed that a false affidavit in the electoral process is not merely a private matter because electoral integrity affects society at large.

Limited ruling: Importantly, the Supreme Court did not determine whether the appellant actually filed a false affidavit. It only determined the appropriate legal framework and procedure.

Practical significance: The judgment provides guidance for municipal election prosecutions and prevents courts from mechanically applying RPA provisions to elections governed by separate state laws.