Election Affidavit: Candidate Must Disclose Spouse's Separate Assets Too, Says Supreme Court
Supreme Court clarifies spouse asset disclosure in Gujarat election affidavits.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a candidate contesting municipal elections in Gujarat cannot omit properties owned solely by their spouse while filing the mandatory election affidavit, holding that the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994, require disclosure of the assets of the candidate, their spouse, and their dependents.
The observation came in a case where a woman councillor challenged criminal proceedings initiated against her for allegedly failing to disclose the full extent of the landed properties owned by herself and her spouse in the affidavit submitted for the 2015 municipal elections.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the candidate's contention that the prescribed affidavit format only required disclosure of properties owned by the candidate or jointly with the spouse.
Court held that the format does not permit exclusion of properties held exclusively by the spouse and clarified that the comma after the word "myself" is merely a grammatical separator with no legal significance.
Referring to Rule 7A of the 1994 Rules, as amended in 2005, the Bench said the provision requires every candidate to file an affidavit disclosing specified information, including details of assets.
"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," Court observed.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the candidate's interpretation of the affidavit format?
The appellant had argued that Rule 7A only required disclosure of properties owned by the candidate or jointly with the spouse, and not those owned exclusively by the spouse.
Rejecting the contention, Court examined the wording of the affidavit, which states: "That I give hereinbelow the details of the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of myself, my spouse and dependents".
The Bench held that the comma after "myself" simply separates items in a list. The word "of", it said, applies equally to "myself", "my spouse" and "dependents", meaning the provision collectively requires disclosure of 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," Court said.
The Bench further observed that where a false affidavit is allegedly filed during the electoral process, it amounts to an offence against society at large and must be investigated.
Background of the Case
The judgment came in an appeal filed by Chandrikaben Kishore Dafda against a Gujarat High Court order refusing to quash a criminal complaint and the issuance of process by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham.
The complaint, filed in February 2016 before the Deputy District Development Officer, Bhuj, alleged that while contesting the 2015 municipal elections for the post of Councillor, the appellant failed to disclose the true extent of the landed properties owned by herself and her spouse in her election affidavit, in violation of the Rules and in breach of public trust.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that elections to municipal councils are governed by the relevant State legislation and not the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was also contended that the complaint was barred by limitation under Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, since the affidavit had been made public as required under the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules, 2005 and the complainant was deemed to have knowledge of it.
What Did the Supreme Court Say on Cognizance?
On the issue of cognizance, Court reiterated the settled legal principle that taking cognizance under an incorrect penal provision is a curable defect, provided the court otherwise has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the relevant offences.
The Bench noted that although false declarations under the Gujarat Municipalities Act were earlier punishable under Section 9, those provisions had been omitted in 1990. Consequently, where a candidate files a false affidavit, the applicable penal provisions would be those under the Indian Penal Code.
Also Read| Congress Leader Meenakshi Natarajan Moves MP High Court Challenging Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection
Court observed that while the private complainant had referred to provisions of the IPC, the trial court had taken cognizance only under the Representation of the People Act.
Rejecting the appellant's contention that this amounted to a jurisdictional error, Bench agreed with the State that the defect was curable under Section 465 CrPC.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the cognizance order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh and proceed in accordance with law.
While doing so, Court reiterated that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. It also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, and its observations were confined to deciding the validity of the cognizance order.
Case Title: Chandrikaben Kishore Dafda Vs State of Gujarat & Anr
Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026