The Supreme Court of India has decreed that individuals contesting Gujarat municipal elections must disclose not only their own assets but also those owned solely by their spouses. This significant ruling was delivered in the case of Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Background of the Case
The issue arose from the 2015 Gujarat municipal elections when Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, a candidate in the election, was accused of failing to disclose several properties registered in her husband’s name. This accusation led to legal proceedings initiated by a private complainant, which resulted in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gandhidham taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), thereby summoning Dafda.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
Dafda approached the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the properties in question were in the process of being sold, which did not transfer their title. However, the High Court refused to interfere, considering the proceedings were at a nascent stage.
Subsequently, Dafda escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, contending that the Magistrate wrongly applied Section 125A of the RPA, which pertains solely to parliamentary and state legislative elections, not municipal elections governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act and the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
While the Supreme Court concurred with Dafda’s argument regarding the misapplication of Section 125A, it dismissed her assertion that she was not required to disclose properties solely in her husband’s name. The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, clarified that Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules mandates the disclosure of assets owned by candidates, their spouses, and their dependents, without excluding properties solely owned by a spouse.
More Read
The Court emphasized that although the Magistrate initially took cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision, this was a curable error. It reiterated the principle that cognizance is taken of an offense, not an offender, and that any alleged filing of a false affidavit in the electoral process constitutes an offense against society that necessitates investigation.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance under the appropriate legal provisions, noting that it had not formed an opinion on the substantive allegations against Dafda. The appeal was thus disposed of, with Advocate Namit Saxena representing Dafda, Advocate Swati Ghildiyal for the State of Gujarat, and Advocate Jitendra Kumar Singh for the complainant.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to transparency in electoral processes, ensuring candidates’ accountability regarding asset disclosures in municipal elections.
