Delays in subordinate courts weaken accountability in electoral law. Discuss with reference to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts.

Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 makes it a crime to file a false affidavit, or hide information in one, when submitting a nomination. Returning Officers (ROs) cannot reject a nomination because they think its contents are false. They can only file a court complaint [3]. So the speed of magistrates' courts decides whether the disclosure law has any real force.

How subordinate-court delay weakens accountability

• The check comes only after the election: a candidate who lies can still contest and win. The lie is tested only in court [3].
• Delay in registering complaints: a complaint against Tamil Nadu's Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, filed on 8 September 2026, had still not been numbered (given a case number) more than a month later [1].
• Trial versus term: the offence carries at most six months' imprisonment. A trial that starts late can outlast the legislator's five-year term, so the penalty has no practical effect.
• No way to unseat the winner: the ECI has said Article 191 does not cover the Section 125A offence [4]. Conviction is therefore the only consequence, and delay removes even that.
• Last remedy left: an election petition must be filed within 45 days of the result. After that, the criminal complaint is the main remedy left. This weakens voters' right to know under Article 19(1)(a) (UoI v. ADR, 2002).

Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts

• Article 227 (superintendence) and Article 235 (control) give High Courts power over subordinate courts.
• Corrective use: on 13 October 2026, the Madras High Court directed its Registry to get the magistrate's report on when the complaint would be numbered [1].
• Monitoring precedent: in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, the Supreme Court asked High Courts to monitor trials of MPs and MLAs on their own initiative.
• Limits: the intervention is reactive and covers one case at a time. It depends on a litigant approaching the court and sets no general deadline. Vacancies and backlogs remain.

Way forward

• Law Commission (244th Report): day-to-day trial of false-affidavit cases, a minimum sentence of two years, disqualification on conviction, and treating a false affidavit as a corrupt practice [2].
• High Courts: use Article 227 to set time limits for numbering and cognizance of election-offence complaints, and designate courts to hear them.
• ROs: file complaints themselves so that enforcement does not depend only on rival candidates [3].

Disclosure without timely adjudication is only symbolic. Structured High Court supervision, together with the Law Commission's reforms, can make Section 125A an effective deterrent. That would protect the voter's right to know and the constitutional promise of free and fair elections.