SC backs voters’ right to prosecute candidates

Why in the News

A false or concealed nomination affidavit can now be taken to court on a complaint by any private citizen, not only by a public servant or a competent authority. A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that no law confines such complaints to officials, giving the citizen-voter a direct way to enforce honest disclosure by candidates.

What is a false affidavit offence, and why does it matter?

1. What the affidavit is: Every candidate files a sworn personal affidavit with the nomination, declaring assets, educational qualifications and criminal antecedents. It works like a sworn job application read by the voter.
2. Why it exists: The affidavits are part of the legislative effort to keep elections pure and democracy healthy. Voters must be educated and well informed about the candidates seeking their vote.
3. The offence: Filing false details or hiding facts to mislead voters is punishable under Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), with up to six months’ jail, a fine, or both.
4. Nature of the offence: It is non-cognisable, so the police cannot investigate or arrest without a magistrate’s order, and bailable, so the accused has a right to bail.
5. The takeaway: An affidavit is only as useful as its accuracy, so the question of who may complain about a false one decides whether disclosure has teeth.

What did the Court decide about who can complain?

1. The procedural bar: Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) allows a court to take cognisance (formally take up a case) of certain offences only on a complaint by a public servant.
2. The holding: The Bench held that this restriction does not apply to Section 125-A. No court is barred from taking up the offence on a complaint by a private person.
3. Legislative intent: Had Parliament wanted only public servants to complain about false affidavits, it could have amended Section 195 CrPC to say so.
4. No limiting provision: No enactment says only a public servant may lodge a Section 125-A complaint. The Court said this absence strengthens its reading.

Why does the ruling matter for electoral politics?

1. Standing for voters: The ruling gives the vigilant citizen-voter locus standi (the legal right to bring a case) to act directly against dishonesty in electoral politics.
2. Scrutiny from day one: Transparency now begins at the nomination stage, before a vote is cast, and no longer depends on an official choosing to complain.

Challenges

1. Light penalty: The maximum punishment under Section 125-A is small set against the gain of winning a seat by hiding facts.
2. Frivolous complaints: Open standing lets rivals file politically motivated complaints to harass candidates during a campaign.
3. Burden on the complainant: A private complainant must gather proof of hidden assets or cases without a police investigation.
4. Slow trials: Criminal cases against elected representatives often outlast the term they were elected for.
5. No truth check at scrutiny: Returning Officers check whether an affidavit is complete, not whether its contents are true.

Way Forward

1. Stiffer penalty: Parliament should raise the jail term for a false affidavit to at least two years, as the Law Commission’s 244th Report (2014) recommended.
2. Time-bound trials: Special courts for cases against legislators should decide Section 125-A complaints within a fixed period.
3. Data cross-checks: The Election Commission of India (ECI) should match declared assets against income tax records and publish mismatches.
4. Early screening: Magistrates should test a complaint’s documentary basis before issuing summons, so that harassment complaints fail early.

Conclusion

The ruling moves the enforcement of candidate disclosure from officials to voters themselves. Whether it changes candidates’ behaviour depends on courts deciding such complaints quickly and on a penalty heavy enough to outweigh the gain from concealment.

Back2Basics: Candidate affidavit (Form 26)

1. Legal basis: Section 33A of the RPA requires the disclosure, made in an affidavit in Form 26 filed with the nomination paper.
2. Origin: The duty traces to Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002). That judgment recognised the voter’s right to know a candidate’s background.
3. Party disclosure: Political parties must also publish their candidates’ criminal records on their websites and in newspapers.
4. Voter access: The ECI’s Know Your Candidate app lets voters read these declarations.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2020] Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State. 2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (d)”