Case Name: CHANDRIKABEN KISHOR DAFDA V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 

Petition No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.16030 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 665

Date of Judgment: 01.07.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Relevant Statutes & Provisions: Sections 465, 468 and 469 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules, 2005, Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court, in a significant judgement concerning election transparency and criminal procedure, clarified that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. The Court held that merely because the Magistrate took cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision, the proceedings do not automatically become invalid if the court otherwise possessed jurisdiction and no failure of justice has been caused. The judgment also reiterates that candidates contesting local body elections are under a legal obligation to disclose not only their own assets but also the assets exclusively owned by their spouses, as required under the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Gujarat Municipalities Rules). The matter was ultimately remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 

FACTS

The appellant contested the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat. A private complaint was subsequently filed alleging that she had failed to disclose several immovable properties standing in the name of her husband while submitting the mandatory election affidavit. It was alleged that such suppression amounted to filing a false affidavit before the election authorities. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as RPA, 1951) and issued summons. The appellant challenged the proceedings before the Gujarat High Court, contending that the RPA, 1951 did not apply to municipal elections, the complaint was barred by limitation, and the Rules did not require disclosure of properties exclusively owned by the spouse. The High Court dismissed the petition, following which the matter reached the Supreme Court. 

ISSUES

• Whether a candidate contesting municipal elections is required to disclose properties exclusively owned by the spouse in the election affidavit?

• Whether cognizance taken under an incorrect statutory provision vitiates the criminal proceedings?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

The appellant argued that Section 125A of the RPA Act, 1951 was inapplicable to municipal elections and that the Gujarat Municipalities Rules did not require disclosure of properties solely owned by the spouse. It was further submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation under Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC). The Complainant contended that the Rules clearly require disclosure of the assets of the candidate, spouse and dependents. It was further argued that even if the Magistrate referred to the wrong statutory provision while taking cognizance, such an error was merely procedural and curable under Section 465 of CrPC since cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

Regarding the first issue, the Supreme Court answered it in the affirmative. It held that Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities Rules clearly requires disclosure of the assets of the candidate, spouse and dependents. The Court rejected the argument of the respondent that only jointly owned properties were required to be disclosed. It observed that the wording of the aforesaid Rule leaves no ambiguity and obligates disclosure of assets belonging to all three categories. Consequently, failure to disclose the properties of the spouse could constitute a false affidavit capable of attracting criminal liability. 

Regarding the second issue, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate had incorrectly taken cognizance under Section 125A of the RPA Act, 2005 which does not apply to municipal elections. However, this error did not invalidate the proceedings because it was a curable irregularity under Section 465 of CrPC. Reiterating the settled principle that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, the Court held that if the alleged conduct otherwise disclosed offences under the applicable law, the proceedings could continue after proper cognizance was taken. Since no prejudice or failure of justice had been demonstrated, the Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate to take fresh cognizance under the appropriate legal provisions and proceed in accordance with law. 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the cognizance order of the magistrate only to the limited extent that it had been taken under an incorrect statutory provision. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for taking fresh cognizance under the appropriate provisions of law and for proceeding in accordance with law. Importantly, the Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations. The judgment reinforces two important principles that first, candidates must make complete and truthful disclosures in election affidavits, including the assets of their spouses; and second, a procedural error in citing the wrong statutory provision while taking cognizance does not automatically defeat criminal proceedings where no failure of justice has occurred.

Source