Supreme Court: Representation of the People Act Not Applicable to Municipal Elections, False Asset Disclosure May Still Attract Criminal Action

June 2, 2026 : The Supreme Court has clarified that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) are confined to elections for Parliament and State Legislatures and cannot be invoked in cases arising from municipal elections conducted under state laws.

The ruling came while deciding a case involving a woman candidate who contested the 2015 municipal elections in Gujarat. Criminal proceedings had been initiated against her under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, alleging that she failed to disclose certain immovable properties exclusively owned by her husband in the election affidavit filed along with her nomination papers.

Examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court observed that the definition of “election” under the Representation of the People Act is restricted to elections to Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. Since municipal elections are governed by separate state enactments, the Court held that the penal provisions contained in the RPA cannot be applied to candidates contesting local body elections.

However, the Bench emphasized that candidates participating in municipal elections are not exempt from their legal obligation to make complete and truthful disclosures. Where a candidate suppresses material information or furnishes false particulars in the election affidavit, prosecution may still be initiated under other applicable criminal laws if the relevant municipal legislation does not prescribe a specific penal provision.

The Court also dealt with the issue of a procedural defect in the case. It noted that although the Magistrate had taken cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision, such an error would not automatically invalidate the proceedings. If the court otherwise possesses jurisdiction and no prejudice has been caused to the accused, the proceedings may continue under the appropriate legal framework.

On the issue of disclosure of assets, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that only jointly owned properties are required to be declared. It held that the prescribed affidavit format clearly mandates disclosure of assets belonging to the candidate, the candidate’s spouse, and dependants, including properties that are exclusively owned by the spouse.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance under the Representation of the People Act and remitted the matter for fresh consideration under the appropriate legal provisions. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and left all factual and legal issues open for determination by the Magistrate in accordance with law.