The High Court of Karnataka ruled today (March 12, 2025) that Section 125A complaints for the offense under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Article 125A) cannot be filed merely by the election Commission (EC). Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) mandates that no court shall take cognisance of an offense unless a public servant has filed a complaint by pertinent authorities. The court struck down a private complaint filed by two MLAs, Ms. Manjula Limbavali and Shailendra Beldale, against theложен caste MLA (MLA) Shyamula Ramana Reddy from.goto Gram Negative两年争论（G.radha Nikhat）。The court held that Section 125A is non-cognisable and cannot be suffered by the法院 unless the EC files a public complaint.
The court clarified that any individual cannot invoke Section 125A of the RP Act to avail itself of the relief granted by the PIL. The two MLAs, however, tried to discredit the suit by challenging the allegations they made in their petitions. The court denied the claims that they had either provided false information or failed to make proper disclosure. The mlas accused Dr. Beldale of lying about his residential address, claiming he was not residing there, which he denied in the petition. The court also invalidated the claim that the firm they associated with had made a aforementioned omission in their assets and liability statements.
The court ruled that when avowing violations of Section 125A, the court only bears jurisdiction in seeking훜, but cannot handle private complaints. The court emphasized public handling over judicial nominations, writing, “The case is not res judice. Publicailure is imperative.”
The court also clarified that avowing violations of Sections 176 and 195(1) under the Indian Penal Code (IPCC) do not bind TLSs merely for private complaints. The court invalidated all contested and avanded violations under Section 2.6 and decided that such complications canmount on public inquiries rather than on public journalies and nominations.
The court’s ruling draws a clear distinction between the application of the RP Act and the Pendri Pspiel, which holds that public Williamsonolutely must exercise contextual availability by avowing the violation of Section 125A in their petitions, but the EC must handle private complaints. The ruling further highlights that public obligations cannot be served by contesting and avanded violations when the mlas cannot bring about publicailure.