Supreme Court Holds RPA Penal Provisions Do Not Apply to Municipal Elections

Supreme Court Holds RPA Penal Provisions Do Not Apply to Municipal Elections

The Supreme Court of India, in Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2026 INSC 665), decided on July 1, 2026, held that the penal provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) do not apply to municipal elections. The ruling by a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh resolves a recurring question about whether candidates accused of filing false affidavits in local body elections can be prosecuted under the RPA.

Background: False Affidavit in Municipal Election

The appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, had contested municipal elections in Gujarat in 2015. She was accused of suppressing details of immovable properties owned by her husband while filing her nomination affidavit. Criminal proceedings were initiated against her, and cognizance was taken under the penal provisions of the RPA.

The appellant challenged the cognizance order, arguing that the RPA governs elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, not elections to municipal bodies. Municipal elections are governed by separate state municipal laws, such as the Gujarat Municipalities Act.

The Supreme Court's Core Finding

The Court agreed with the appellant's central argument. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a statute enacted to regulate elections to Parliament and State Legislatures. Its penal provisions are specifically linked to those electoral processes. Municipal elections fall under a separate legal framework governed by state municipal legislation, and the RPA's penal sections do not extend to local body polls.

However, the Court clarified that this does not mean a candidate who files a false affidavit in a municipal election escapes criminal liability entirely. Where the applicable municipal law does not contain its own penal provision for false affidavits, the candidate may be prosecuted under the general criminal law, such as the Indian Penal Code (now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

Curable Defect at Cognizance Stage

An important secondary holding concerned the procedural question: what happens when a Magistrate takes cognizance under the wrong statutory provision? The Supreme Court ruled that an error in citing the wrong provision at the cognizance stage is a curable defect. It does not inherently vitiate the criminal proceedings. The correct remedy is to set aside the cognizance order and remand the matter to the Magistrate to take fresh cognizance under the appropriate provision of law.

In this case, the Court set aside the cognizance order under the RPA and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to consider whether cognizance could be taken under the appropriate provisions of general criminal law.

Asset Disclosure Obligations in Municipal Elections

The Court also addressed the scope of asset disclosure in election affidavits. The bench held that when a nomination form requires a candidate to disclose assets of "myself, my spouse and dependents," properties solely owned by the spouse must also be disclosed. This reinforces the principle that election affidavits must be comprehensive, regardless of whether the election is parliamentary, legislative, or municipal.

Why This Ruling Matters

India conducts thousands of municipal elections across states, involving hundreds of thousands of candidates. Without this clarity, prosecutors and courts were applying the RPA's penal framework to municipal elections without jurisdiction, creating legal complications and wasted judicial time. This ruling draws a clear line: the RPA's criminal provisions operate only within its statutory domain, which covers Parliament and State Legislature elections.

For municipal candidates, the practical effect is that prosecution for false affidavits must be initiated under the applicable municipal law or general criminal law, not the RPA. For prosecutors, the ruling means they must identify the correct legal basis before initiating proceedings.

Key Takeaways

First, the RPA's penal provisions apply exclusively to elections to Parliament and State Legislatures, not to municipal or local body elections. Second, false affidavit prosecution in municipal elections must use the relevant municipal statute or general criminal law. Third, taking cognizance under the wrong provision is a curable defect that can be corrected by remand. Fourth, all election candidates, including municipal candidates, must fully disclose spousal assets in nomination affidavits.

For more on election law and constitutional protections, see Election Commission Powers Under Article 324 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Key Changes from IPC. Also relevant: Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: Key Provisions, Defamation vs. Privacy Rights Under Article 21, and Writ Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 32.