Mandatory disclosure through candidate affidavits has not been matched by credible penalties for false disclosure. Critically examine Section 125A of the RPA, 1951 and suggest reforms.

In Union of India v. ADR (2002), the Supreme Court held that voters' right to know about candidates is part of Article 19(1)(a). Parliament then inserted Section 125A into the RPA. It punishes a candidate who files a false affidavit, conceals information or leaves information out. The section created a duty to disclose, but its deterrent effect has stayed weak.

Strengths of Section 125A

• Criminalises falsehood: it makes an honest Form 26 affidavit a legal duty that can be enforced, not just a formality.
• Open to anyone: a voter, a rival or the Returning Officer (RO) can file a complaint before a magistrate. In the 2026 complaint against Tamil Nadu's Leader of the Opposition, the Madras HC sought a report on delay in registering it [1].
• Mens rea safeguard: a person is liable only if they knew or had reason to believe the information was false. This protects honest mistakes.

Weaknesses

• Light penalty: the maximum is 6 months in jail, and the court may impose a fine alone [2].
• No disqualification: the punishment falls below the 2-year threshold of Section 8(3). The ECI has opined that a Section 125A offence does not attract Article 191 [3]. A convicted legislator can keep the seat.
• No check before the election: ROs cannot reject a nomination because the affidavit is false. They can only file a complaint [4].
• Delay: the complaint above stayed unregistered for over a month [1]. Trials often outlast the five-year term.
• Risk of harassment: losing rivals may file complaints as a political tactic.

Reforms

• Law Commission (244th Report, 2014): set a minimum of 2 years in jail, make conviction a ground for disqualification, treat a false affidavit as a corrupt practice, and hold day-to-day trials [5].
• ECI (2008): remove the fine-only option [2]. This proposal was still pending with the Law Ministry in 2020 [6].
• Verification: use data held by bodies such as the tax department and the police to cross-check affidavits. Allow a one-week gap before scrutiny so objections can be raised [5].
• Judicial: High Courts can use Article 227 to set time limits for these complaints. Disqualification should follow only conviction, so that complaints by rivals cannot unseat anyone on their own.

Section 125A gave the right to know a legal basis but little force. Harsher penalties that apply only after conviction and keep the mens rea safeguard, combined with time-bound trials, would make disclosure credible without letting rivals misuse it. Such reform would serve the free and fair elections that are part of the Constitution's basic structure.