Supreme Court Holds Candidate Must Disclose Spouse’s Solely Owned Assets in Municipal Election Affidavit; Wrong Statutory Provision in Cognizance Order Is Curable
Facts
Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda contested the 2015 municipal election for the post of Councillor in Gujarat.
Velji Namori Maheshwari filed a complaint dated 17 February 2016 before the Deputy District Development Officer, alleging that the appellant had failed to disclose the complete extent of the immovable properties owned by her husband in the affidavit submitted with her nomination papers.
As the initial complaint was allegedly not pursued, the complainant submitted another representation on 16 May 2017 and thereafter instituted a private criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham.
The complainant produced documents showing that four immovable properties situated in Ratadiya, Radha and Gundala villages stood in the name of the appellant’s husband. The election affidavit, however, disclosed only agricultural land bearing Survey No. 247 at Anjar and a house at Gandhidham.
On 8 November 2017, the Magistrate issued process against the appellant under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for allegedly suppressing information in her election affidavit.
The appellant approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court rejected her application on 22 August 2025, observing that the complaint was at a preliminary stage and that an agreement to sell concerning some properties did not itself transfer title.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 applies to an election for the post of municipal councillor.
- Whether Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 requires a candidate to disclose properties exclusively owned by the candidate’s spouse.
- Whether taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision constitutes a jurisdictional defect that vitiates the entire criminal proceeding.
- Whether such an error can be cured under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that the Representation of the People Act governs elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and does not apply to municipal elections, which are governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the applicable State election rules.
Accordingly, the Magistrate had no authority to issue process under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The appellant further contended that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC. Since election affidavits are required to be publicly disseminated, the complainant was deemed to have knowledge of the alleged non-disclosure when the affidavit was filed. Limitation therefore had to be calculated from that date under Section 469 CrPC.
It was also argued that Rule 7A required disclosure only of properties owned by the candidate or jointly owned with the spouse. According to the appellant, properties owned exclusively by the spouse were not required to be disclosed.
The appellant submitted that taking cognizance under an inapplicable statute was a jurisdictional error going to the root of the proceedings and could not be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant argued that mentioning Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act did not invalidate the cognizance order because the defect was curable and the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage.
It was submitted that the appellant’s own pleadings and documents demonstrated that material properties standing in her husband’s name had not been disclosed.
The complainant further argued that filing a false affidavit before a public authority could attract Sections 192, 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. Since those offences carried punishment extending up to seven years, the bar under Section 468 CrPC would not apply.
Reliance was also placed on a 2011 order of the Gujarat State Election Commission directing Returning Officers to initiate criminal proceedings where candidates furnished false, misleading or incomplete information in affidavits filed during local-body elections.
The State of Gujarat supported the position that the incorrect reference to Section 125A was an irregularity capable of being cured under Section 465 CrPC, provided no failure of justice or prejudice was caused to the accused.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court first examined the definition of “election” under Section 2(d) of the Representation of the People Act. The provision covers elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and does not extend to municipal elections.
Municipal elections in Gujarat are governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, as amended in 2005.
Rule 7A requires every candidate to submit an affidavit disclosing the movable and immovable assets of:
- the candidate;
- the candidate’s spouse; and
- the candidate’s dependants.
The Court rejected the appellant’s interpretation that only jointly owned properties of the spouse were required to be disclosed. The reference to joint ownership merely requires the extent of joint ownership to be specified wherever applicable. It does not exclude properties exclusively owned by the spouse.
The Court explained that the phrase requiring disclosure of assets “of myself, my spouse and dependants” creates three separate categories. The comma after “myself” merely separates the items in the list and does not restrict the scope of disclosure.
Therefore, the appellant was legally required to disclose properties standing exclusively in her husband’s name.
The Court then examined the concept of cognizance. Cognizance is taken when a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the suspected commission of an offence. It is taken of an offence and not merely of a particular statutory section or individual.
An incorrect reference to the penal provision does not necessarily nullify the proceedings where the Magistrate otherwise has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the underlying offence.
Section 465 CrPC protects judicial orders from being reversed solely because of an error, omission or irregularity unless the defect has caused an actual failure of justice or prejudice to the accused.
Precedent Analysis
State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju
The Court relied on this decision for the principle that cognizance occurs when a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the suspected commission of an offence. No formal order or particular form of action is necessary.
State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid
This decision explained that cognizance means taking judicial notice of an offence with the intention of initiating proceedings or examining whether there is a basis to initiate them.
The Court reiterated that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender.
Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The judgment was referred to for its recent discussion of the meaning and scope of cognizance in criminal proceedings.
Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah
The Court relied upon this decision for the principle that taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision is a curable defect where the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the appropriate offence.
Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka
The Supreme Court reiterated that irregularities in a cognizance order fall within the scope of Section 465 CrPC.
The provision is intended to prevent minor procedural defects, which do not affect the root of the case, from delaying criminal proceedings.
Santosh De v. Archna Guha
This decision was referred to while explaining that procedural irregularities should not vitiate proceedings unless they result in prejudice or failure of justice.
The relevant test is whether the accused has suffered real prejudice, not merely whether a technical error has occurred.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act was not the correct provision for an alleged false declaration made during a municipal election.
The Gujarat Municipalities Act earlier contained provisions penalising false declarations, but those provisions had been omitted. Since candidates continued to be legally required to file truthful affidavits under Rule 7A, any criminal liability for a false affidavit would have to be examined under the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other governing law.
Although the Magistrate had taken cognizance solely under an inapplicable provision of the Representation of the People Act, the error did not automatically invalidate the entire complaint.
The substance of the allegation was that the appellant had filed a false or incomplete affidavit during the electoral process. Such an allegation concerned an offence against the integrity of the election process and society at large and required proper examination.
The incorrect statutory reference was therefore treated as a curable irregularity under Section 465 CrPC rather than a defect that destroyed the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
At the same time, the existing cognizance order could not be permitted to continue in its present form because it had been passed under an inapplicable statutory provision.
The Court therefore remanded the matter to the Magistrate to reconsider the complaint, take cognizance afresh under the appropriate provisions and proceed in accordance with law.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on whether the appellant had committed any offence. It also did not conclusively determine the limitation objection, leaving the legal and factual defences to be considered in the fresh proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that a candidate contesting a municipal election under the Gujarat Municipalities Rules must disclose not only jointly owned properties but also assets exclusively owned by the candidate’s spouse.
The Court further held that although Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act did not apply to municipal elections, the Magistrate’s reference to the incorrect provision was a curable irregularity and did not require the complaint to be quashed outright.
The existing cognizance order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh under the appropriate legal provisions and proceed in accordance with law.
Case: Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat and Another
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: 2026 INSC 665; Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16030 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: 1 July 2026
Result: Appeal disposed of; matter remanded to the Magistrate for taking cognizance afresh under the appropriate legal provisions.
