HC calls for report on plaint against Udhayanidhi’s poll affidavit

1. At a Glance

• The Madras High Court has directed its Registry to obtain a report from a Metropolitan Magistrate's court at George Town, Chennai. The report concerns delay in numbering (formally registering) a criminal complaint about a false election affidavit filed by Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin [1].
• The complaint was filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). It alleges that false information was given in the affidavit filed with the nomination form for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election [1].
• UPSC relevance: candidate disclosure norms, voters' right to know, the criminal remedy versus the election-petition remedy, and the supervisory role of High Courts over subordinate courts. All of these are core GS-II (Polity: RPA, electoral reforms) themes.

2. Why in the News

• 13 October 2026 (Tuesday): Justice V. Lakshminarayanan of the Madras HC called for the magistrate's report [1].
• The magistrate was asked to say by Thursday, 15 October 2026 how long it would take to number the petition [1].
• Trigger: the complainant's counsel told the HC that the complaint, filed on 8 September 2026, had not yet been entertained by the magistrate court [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Complainant: P. Milany of Theni district, a contestant in the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency [1].
• Respondent: Udhayanidhi Stalin, DMK leader and former Deputy Chief Minister. He won Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni for a second consecutive term in the 2026 election and is now Leader of the Opposition [1].
• Legal basis cited: the complaint was lodged "under Section 125 of the RPA, 1951" for allegedly furnishing false information in the election affidavit [1].
• How the disclosure regime developed [2]:
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): the Supreme Court held that voters have a right to know candidates' criminal record, assets and education, as part of Article 19(1)(a).
• RPA (Third Amendment) Act, 2002: inserted Section 33A (right to information) and Section 125A (penalty for a false affidavit).
• PUCL v. Union of India (2003): the Supreme Court struck down Section 33B, which had limited disclosure.
• Resurgence India v. ECI (2013): a nomination with blank columns in the affidavit can be rejected by the Returning Officer.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar (2015): non-disclosure of criminal antecedents can amount to "undue influence", which is a corrupt practice.
• Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2018): candidates must also disclose the sources of income of themselves and their spouses and dependants.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Court	Madras High Court, single judge (Justice V. Lakshminarayanan) [1]
Lower court	Metropolitan Magistrate's court, George Town, Chennai [1]
Statute invoked	RPA, 1951, Section 125 as reported [1]; the false-affidavit offence is actually Section 125A [2]
Section 125A penalties [2]	Up to 6 months' imprisonment, or fine, or both, for: failing to give information, giving false information, or concealing information in the nomination paper or affidavit
Affidavit format [2]	Form 26, under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
Section 125 (actual subject) [2]	Promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election
Civil remedy [2]	Election petition in the High Court under Sections 80–81 of the RPA, within 45 days of the result; grounds listed in Section 100
Criminal procedure [2]	The magistrate takes cognizance of the complaint. This is now under BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 190 of the CrPC).
"Numbering"	Registry step that gives a complaint a case number so the court can formally take it up. Delay at this stage is what the HC is examining [1]
Constituency	Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni, Chennai [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• There are two separate tracks: a criminal prosecution under Section 125A (it does not unseat the winner) and an election petition (which can void the election). Aspirants often mix them up [2].
• The HC's supervisory power over subordinate courts comes from Article 227 [2]. Here it was used to tackle delay at the numbering stage [1].
• Voters' right to know is part of Article 19(1)(a), per ADR (2002) and PUCL (2003) [2].

Governance / Ethical

• Probity in public life: an affidavit is only worth something if false statements are actually punished.
• The complaint involves a sitting LoP and former Deputy CM [1]. This raises questions about equal treatment of powerful respondents and about using courts for political rivalry.

Administrative / Judicial

• Delay in registering complaints: the complaint had stayed unnumbered for over a month, from 8 September to 13 October 2026 [1]. This points to backlog in subordinate courts.
• The Returning Officer carries out only a summary scrutiny of nominations and cannot judge whether a statement is true. Truth is tested later in court [2].

Electoral Reform

• The Law Commission (244th Report, 2014) and the ECI have recommended raising the Section 125A penalty to at least 2 years and making a false affidavit a ground for disqualification [2].
• Section 125A is a weak deterrent: the punishment is light and convictions are rare [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2026: Tamil Nadu Assembly election held. Udhayanidhi Stalin was re-elected from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni for a second consecutive term and became Leader of the Opposition [1].
• 8 Sept 2026: P. Milany filed the complaint before the George Town magistrate court [1].
• 13 Oct 2026: the Madras HC directed its Registry to call for the magistrate's report [1].
• 15 Oct 2026: deadline for the magistrate's response on the timeline for numbering [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The offence of filing a false affidavit or concealing information in a nomination falls under Section 125A, RPA 1951 [2].
• Maximum punishment under Section 125A: 6 months, or fine, or both [2].
• Section 125A and Section 33A were inserted by the RPA (Third Amendment) Act, 2002 [2].
• The candidate's affidavit is filed in Form 26 under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [2].
• Section 125 of the RPA deals with promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election, not false affidavits [2].
• An election petition is tried by the High Court and must be filed within 45 days of the result (Section 81) [2].
• Voters' right to know candidates' antecedents was recognised under Article 19(1)(a) in UoI v. ADR (2002) [2].
• A nomination with blank affidavit columns can be rejected: Resurgence India v. ECI (2013) [2].
• Krishnamoorthy (2015): suppressing criminal antecedents can amount to undue influence under Section 123(2) [2].
• Lok Prahari (2018): candidates must disclose sources of income [2].
• The High Court's superintendence over subordinate courts comes from Article 227 [2].
• Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni is Udhayanidhi Stalin's constituency [1].

8. Why a False Affidavit Rarely Costs a Winner the Seat

• The Returning Officer cannot stop a false affidavit at the start
• The Election Commission (ECI) tells Returning Officers (ROs) that a nomination cannot be rejected for hiding or giving false information in the affidavit [5].
• If the RO believes the affidavit is wrong, the only step allowed is to file a complaint in court under Section 125A [5].

• So a candidate who lies can still contest and win. The lie is tested only after the election.

• Even a conviction does not remove the legislator

• The ECI has given its opinion on a Gujarat MLA's case. It said Article 191 (the grounds for disqualifying a state legislator) does not cover breaking Section 33A or committing the Section 125A offence [6].

• Section 125A allows a fine only as the full punishment [8]. A candidate can be convicted, pay a fine and keep the seat.

• What this means for the voter's right to know

• The Supreme Court made disclosure a right under Article 19(1)(a). But a right with no real cost for breaking it is weak.
• A candidate may decide that hiding a fact is worth the risk, because the worst likely result is a small fine after the term has begun.

9. Why a Month's Delay at the Magistrate's Court Matters

• After 45 days, only the criminal complaint is left
• An election petition must be filed within 45 days of the result [2]. Once that window closes, a Section 125A complaint is the main legal route still open to a rival or a voter.
• Here, the complaint was filed on 8 September 2026 and had still not been numbered by 13 October 2026 [1].

• If the court does not even register the complaint, the only remaining check stops at the court office.

• The time limit is short, but the filing date protects the complainant

• Offences with a maximum of one year in jail have a limitation period (the deadline to start a case) of one year [2].
• In Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014), the Supreme Court held that the date that counts is the day the complaint is filed, not the day the magistrate takes it up [2]. So court delay alone does not end the case.

• The real risk is different. A trial for a 6-month offence that starts late can outlast the legislator's 5-year term. That leaves the penalty with no practical effect.

• Why the High Court's step is useful but limited

• Asking the magistrate to state a timeline by 15 October [1] fixes delay in one case.
• It does not create a general time limit for election-offence complaints. That would need a rule from the High Court or a change in the law.

10. Reforms Proposed Since 2008 That Are Still Pending

• ECI, 2008: make the jail term a minimum of two years and remove the fine-only option
• The ECI's proposed electoral reforms asked for a minimum two-year prison term under Section 125A. It also asked Parliament to remove the fine as an alternative punishment [8].

• Two years matters because it is the point at which a conviction disqualifies a legislator under Section 8(3) [2].

• Law Commission, 244th Report (2014): three linked changes

• The punishment should go from a maximum of six months to a minimum of two years [3][4].
• Conviction for a false affidavit should be a ground for disqualification [3].
• Filing a false affidavit should count as a corrupt practice (a list of banned election acts that can void an election through an election petition) [3].

• The last change would turn a criminal-only offence into one that can also unseat the winner.

• Still pending in 2020

• The ECI met the Legislative Department (Ministry of Law and Justice) to discuss pending reforms. These included making a false affidavit an electoral offence or corrupt practice [7].

• Twelve years after the ECI's proposal, Parliament had not changed Section 125A.

• Who should act, and how

• Parliament: amend Section 125A along the lines of the Law Commission report. It should also add false affidavits to Section 123 (corrupt practices).
• ECI and ROs: use the existing duty to file complaints where the RO finds an affidavit is wrong [5]. Then the burden does not fall only on political rivals.
• High Courts: use their Article 227 power of superintendence (control over lower courts) to set time limits for registering and hearing Section 125A complaints.

11. The Case Against Harsher Penalties, and Its Limits

• The strongest objection: rivals could use complaints against each other
• The complainant here is a rival candidate in the same constituency [1]. Complaints from election losers can be political tactics.
• Form 26 is long and detailed. If the punishment were two years in jail plus loss of the seat, an honest error in a valuation or a missing old case could end a career.

• Critics also fear that the threat of disqualification would encourage more complaints made only to harass sitting legislators.

• What the objection gets right

• Not every wrong entry is a lie. The law must separate a careless mistake from deliberate hiding of information.

• Section 125A already requires that the candidate knows or has reason to believe the information is false [2]. Any harsher version must keep this mental element (mens rea, meaning a guilty intention).

• Why it still does not justify the current weak law

• The Law Commission tied disqualification to conviction, not to the filing of a complaint [3]. A rival's complaint alone would cost nothing. A court would first have to find a deliberate lie.
• The real fix for misuse is faster courts, not lighter punishment. Quick numbering and trial would dismiss weak cases early and decide real ones within the term.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Section 125A allows at most 6 months' jail and can end with a fine alone. The ECI and the Law Commission both want a minimum of 2 years [3][8]
• Report/Committee: Law Commission of India, 244th Report, Electoral Disqualifications (2014) [4]. ECI, Proposed Electoral Reforms (2008) [8]
• Law/Case: Section 125A and Section 33A of the RPA, 1951. ECI opinion that Article 191 does not cover the Section 125A offence (Gujarat MLA reference, 2020) [6]. Sarah Mathew (2014) on limitation [2]. Article 227 (High Court superintendence) [2]
• Comparison: The ECI's own guidance says ROs cannot reject a nomination for a false affidavit, only file a complaint. So the check happens after the election, not before it [5]

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Salient features of the Representation of People's Act; Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; Electoral reforms.
• GS-IV: Probity in public life.
• Possible questions: 1. 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. (15 marks) 2. Distinguish between an election petition and a criminal prosecution as remedies against false election affidavits. Which is more effective in protecting the voter's right to know? (10 marks) 3. Delays in subordinate courts weaken accountability in electoral law. Discuss with reference to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts. (10 marks)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Sections 8–11A, RPA 1951 (disqualifications): these are the contrast to Section 125A, which does not disqualify.
• Section 123, RPA (corrupt practices): non-disclosure can be treated as undue influence.
• Election petitions (Part VI, RPA): the civil route to unseat a winner.
• Lily Thomas (2013) and Public Interest Foundation (2018): Supreme Court rulings on criminalisation of politics and on publishing criminal antecedents.
• Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora (2020): parties must publish why they chose candidates with criminal cases.
• Law Commission 244th and 255th Reports: electoral reform recommendations.
• Articles 227 and 235: High Court control over subordinate courts.
• BNSS, 2023: the new procedure for complaints and cognizance.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Section 125A of the RPA 1951 (Polity): This is the offence of giving false information in a nomination affidavit, which the complaint is really about.
• Candidate affidavit (Polity): The dispute is over allegedly false statements in the sworn affidavit filed with the nomination form.
• Election petition (Polity): This is the civil route that can void an election, as opposed to the criminal complaint filed here.
• High Court's power of superintendence (Polity): The High Court is using its supervisory power to check delay in the magistrate's court.
• Subordinate courts (Polity): The delay in numbering the complaint happened in a magistrate's court, which is a subordinate court.
• PUCL disclosure case (Polity): This ruling restored voters' right to know candidates' details, which is the basis for affidavit disclosure.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Section 125 vs Section 125A: the article cites "Section 125" [1], but the false-affidavit offence is Section 125A [2]. Section 125 deals with enmity between classes.
• Who hears what: election petitions go to the High Court, while Section 125A prosecutions start before a magistrate [2].
• A Section 125A conviction does not automatically unseat a legislator. The punishment of up to 6 months falls below the disqualification threshold in Section 8(3), which requires 2 or more years' imprisonment [2].
• Returning Officer's powers: the RO cannot reject a nomination because they think the affidavit content is false. They can reject it only for defects such as blank columns [2].
• Year of insertion: Section 125A came through the 2002 amendment, not the 2003 PUCL judgment [2].