False Election Affidavit: Anyone Can Complain, Section 125A Explained | CLAT Explainer

VIDEO EXPLAINER | 6 NOVEMBER 2026

As per the video, the Supreme Court has made it clear that any person can complain about a candidate’s false affidavit. The ruling came on 16 October in Rajkumar Madki versus Dr. Shailendra, a case about a Karnataka MLA. The judgment was written by Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Sheel Nagu was on the bench.

What happened

Dr. Shailendra was elected in 2023 from Bidar to the Karnataka Assembly. Madki alleged that the residential address in his nomination affidavit was wrong.

Madki gave a complaint under CrPC Section 200 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bangalore. The Karnataka High Court quashed the complaint under CrPC Section 195.

The Supreme Court said the High Court was wrong. The video’s reason is that Section 195 does not mention Section 125A at all.

Section 195 and Section 125A

As per the video, Section 195 says that for certain offences a court takes cognizance only when a public servant complains, and not a private person.

Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act is the provision on false affidavits. Later, Section 195 was amended, but Section 125A was still not added to it. Therefore the Court treated this omission as deliberate.

Section 125A itself says that it applies notwithstanding any other law. For a false affidavit under Section 125A, the punishment is imprisonment of up to 6 months, a fine, or both.

Election Commission guidelines and the result

The Court also said that Election Commission guidelines do not apply to courts. The reason given is that interpreting a statute is the work of courts.

Even so, the Court did not revive Madki’s own complaint. The address allegation was prima facie rebutted by documents.

The video describes this as a final judgment of a Division Bench. Article 324 gives the Election Commission superintendence, direction and control of elections, which is the constitutional background for the Commission’s guidelines.

Key terms

• Affidavit: A sworn statement. A candidate files one with the nomination, and the video’s case concerns a wrong residential address in it.
• CrPC Section 200: The section under which Madki gave his complaint to the magistrate, as per the video.
• CrPC Section 195: Certain offences are taken up by a court only on the complaint of a public servant, not a private person, as per the video.
• Section 125A (Representation of the People Act): Provision on a false affidavit: up to 6 months jail, fine or both, and it applies notwithstanding any other law, as per the video.
• Prima facie rebutted: On first look the allegation was answered by documents, so the complaint was not revived.
• Deliberate omission: The Court read the non-addition of Section 125A to Section 195 as a conscious choice.

Why this matters for exams

Questions will test two things: who may complain, and why the High Court’s reliance on Section 195 failed. Link the answer to the deliberate omission of Section 125A from Section 195.

Also remember that winning the legal point did not save the complaint. The Court did not revive it because the address allegation was prima facie rebutted by documents.

The punishment under Section 125A, up to 6 months, a fine or both, is a likely factual question.

Source

This article summarises the video explainer. It reflects the facts as stated in the video; check the official judgment or Gazette text for the exact wording.