July 4, 2026 In Advovacy, Blog, Consultancy

REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT DOESN’T APPLY TO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

On July 1, 2026, the Supreme Court of India made an important ruling in the case of Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026 INSC 665). This decision clarified the limits of electoral laws and procedural errors in criminal proceedings. Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh discussed the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), municipal election rules and whether Magistrates can fix jurisdictional defects.

The Supreme Court determined that while the RPA regulates elections for Parliament and state legislatures, it does not cover municipal elections. A Magistrate’s incorrect use of the RPA to act on a false electoral affidavit does not automatically void the proceedings. The ruling ensures that technical errors cannot be used to avoid accountability for actions against the public trust.

BREIF FACTS

  • The Election: During the 2015 Municipal elections, the Appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, ran for Councillor. She submitted a required electoral affidavit stating her assets as part of the nomination process.

  • The Challenge: A Complainant, Velji Namori Maheshwari, filed complaints and eventually made a private complaint to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) in Gandhidham.

  • The Alleged Violation: The main issue was the Appellant’s failure to disclose the true extent of several properties owned by her Husband, Kishorbhai Dafda. The Complainant argued this omission violated Section 33(A) of the RPA and misused public trust.

  • The Legal Battle: On November 8, 2017, the ACJM found a prima facie violation and issued summons under Section 125(A) of the RPA. The Appellant challenged this in the High Court of Gujarat, claiming that her Husband’s solely owned properties did not need to be disclosed and that the RPA did not apply. The High Court dismissed her motion to quash the proceedings on August 22, 2025, stating that the case was in its early stages and asset suppression needed investigation. The Appellant then took the issue to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES OF LAW

The Supreme Court had to consider three main questions:

1. Does the Representation of the People Act, 1951, apply to the election of a municipal councillor?

2. Does Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2005, require a candidate to disclose properties owned by their spouse?

3. Does a Magistrate taking notice of an offence under the wrong statute (the RPA instead of the IPC) create a serious jurisdictional error that invalidates the proceedings or is it a correctable defect under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court rejected the Appellant’s attempt to dismiss the complaint based on technicalities. It examined the legal framework in detail.

  • Statutory Applicability and the RPA: The Court reviewed the definitions in the RPA. Section 2(d) specifically confines the definition of an “election” to filling seats in either House of Parliament or a State Legislature. As a result, the RPA does not govern municipal elections, which fall under the Gujarat Municipalities Act and its rules.

  • Interpretation of Asset Disclosure: The Bench noted that Rule 7A of the Gujarat Rules calls for disclosing assets of “myself, my spouse and dependents.” The Apex Court explained that the comma after “myself” is simply a listing punctuation and does not create a separate meaning or exclude properties owned solely by the spouse. Candidates must declare their spouse’s assets.

  • Nature of Judicial Cognizance: Drawing on existing legal principles, including State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid (1995) 1 SCC 684, the Supreme Court clarified that cognizance is taken of the offence itself, not the individual or the particular section cited. Since the penal provisions for false declarations under the Gujarat Municipalities Act were removed in 1990, such fraudulent omissions are now covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

  • Curability under Section 465 CrPC: Addressing the main jurisdictional issue, the Court sided with the State’s argument. Though the Magistrate incorrectly issued summons referencing Section 125A of the RPA, this error is correctable. Section 465 of the CrPC is a broad provision designed to avoid delays caused by irregular proceedings, as long as the Court can take cognizance of the actual offence. Filing a false affidavit during elections is a serious violation and mislabeling it with the wrong statute does not justify dismissing the entire case.

ANIKET KUMAR PARCHA

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Editor’s Comments

The ruling in Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat is vital for promoting electoral transparency. By distinguishing between crucial flaws and correctable procedural mistakes, the Supreme Court has protected the integrity of local elections. The judgment sets a clear precedent: while the Representation of the People Act does not apply to municipal elections, judicial errors like a Magistrate taking notice under the wrong law cannot be used to retroactively invalidate legitimate criminal investigations into electoral fraud. Candidates cannot use procedural errors to avoid responsibility for hiding important facts from the public. The case was ultimately sent back to the Magistrate to reconsider under the correct legal provisions.

Sushila Ram Varma

Advocate and Chief Consultant

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video link is in below:

Leave a Reply