Gujarat Municipalities Act| Election Affidavits Must Disclose Spouse's Self-Owned Properties: Supreme Court
The Court held that taking cognizance under wrong section is curable defect under Section 465 CrPC; false affidavit in electoral process is offence against society at large; remanded matter to Magistrate for fresh cognizance.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a candidate contesting a municipal election under Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 is required to disclose properties owned solely by her spouse in the affidavit filed before the Election Officer, and that the word "of" in the affidavit format's requirement under the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 to disclose "details of the assets of myself, my spouse and dependents" applies collectively to all three categories, the candidate, her spouse and her dependents, without any distinction or exclusion.
The Court held that the comma after "myself" is merely a listing comma used grammatically to separate items in a series and does not create any separate meaning, distinction or exclusion so as to limit the disclosure obligation to jointly owned properties alone.
The Court further held that taking cognizance under a wrong section of law is a curable defect under Section 465 CrPC, so long as the Court that took cognizance had the power to take cognizance of the applicable provisions and no failure of justice was occasioned. The Court observed that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of people, and that a false affidavit filed in the electoral process is an offence against society at large and must be investigated.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “A perusal thereof makes clear that the candidate/declarant is to give details of the property held by them, their spouse and their dependents, including what is held by them jointly. It does not say, in any manner whatsoever, that the property held solely by the spouse is not to be mentioned therein...”.
“…The ‘comma’ employed after ‘myself’ is a listing comma simply separating ‘myself’, ‘my spouse’. In the sentence, ‘That I give hereinbelow the details of the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of myself, my spouse and dependents’, the ‘comma’ after myself ‘myself’, is used merely to separate items in a list. The word ‘of’ applies equally to ‘myself’, ‘my spouse’ and ‘dependents’, and, therefore, the sentence is to be read collectively as referring to the assets of all three categories. The ‘comma’ does not create any separate meaning, distinction, or exclusion; it serves only a grammatical and structural function to identify the first item in the series”, the Bench further observed.
The appellant, Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, contested the 2015 Gandhidham Municipal elections in Gujarat and filed an election affidavit disclosing certain assets of herself and her husband, but omitted four agricultural land survey numbers standing solely in her husband's name.
A private complaint led the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), and the Gujarat High Court declined to quash the proceedings.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the RPA does not apply to municipal elections, which are governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, and that the prescribed affidavit required disclosure only of jointly owned spousal properties.
Rejecting the latter contention after a grammatical interpretation of the affidavit format, the Court held that disclosure extends to all properties owned by the spouse. On the applicability of the RPA, the Court held that while cognizance under the RPA was erroneous since municipal elections are governed by the IPC following omission of the relevant GMA penal provisions, the defect was curable under Section 465 CrPC, as the wrong statutory provision did not result in a failure of justice.
“In view of the above, the taking of cognizance itself, even if it was taken under a singular section and that too was erroneous, for it is a well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not people. If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate concerned for taking cognizance afresh and proceed as per law…”, the Bench said.
The matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned for taking cognizance afresh in accordance with law, with the Court clarifying it had expressed no opinion on the merits.
Cause Title: Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 665)
Appellant: Namit Saxena, AOR.
Respondents: Swati Ghildiyal, Sumant Datt, AOR, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Saurav Kumar, Satya Prakash Narain Tripathi, Shiv Ram Pandey, Sandhya Pandey, Rashi Agnihotri, Rehana Begam, Advocates.