Today (24 June 2015), Delhi’s metropolitan magistrate Akash Jain has taken cognizance of a complaint filed against the Union Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Smriti Irani for having filed false affidavit(s) at the time of her election. The court has fixed 28 August 2015 as the next date of hearing for this case. Previously, on June 1, 2015, the above court had reserved the order on the question of limitation and on the issue whether cognizance can be taken or not.
It is noteworthy that at the time of filing her sworn affidavit in 2004 when she contested the Lok Sabha election from the Chandni Chowk constituency in Delhi, she had mentioned that she had passed B.A. in 1996 from Delhi University (School of Correspondence) (see, her affidavit here). Subsequently, in 2011 at the time of contesting Rajya Sabha election from Gujarat, in her sworn affidavit she had mentioned that she had passed B.Com. Part I, in 1994, from Delhi University (School of Correspondence) (see, her affidavit here). Likewise, in 2014, at the time of contesting Lok Sabha election from Amethi in Uttar Pradesh, in her sworn affidavit she had mentioned that she had passed B.Com. Part I, in 1994, from School of Open Learning (Correspondence) of Delhi University (download, her affidavit here).
Therefore, it is obvious that either her affidavit given in 2004 is false, or her affidavits given in 2011 and 2014 are false. Both of these sets of affidavits cannot be true at the same time. In view of these reasons, this issue had become controversial last year after the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. On the basis of these grounds, a complaint was filed by a freelance writer Ahmer Khan, represented by Senior advocate KK Manan, before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, pointing out that there were several discrepancies in Smriti Irani’s affidavits filed before the Election Commission. In the complaint, it was also alleged that in addition to giving wrong information in her affidavits about her educational qualifications, Irani had also lied about other facts such as her assets when she filed her nomination papers for contesting election.
It was alleged in the complaint that these facts revealed commission of offences by Smriti Irani under section 125A of Representation of People Act, 1951, and also any other offences that may attract other penal provisions.
In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that Section 125-A of Representation of People Act, 1951, makes filing of false affidavit at the time of elections as an offence, and this section is reproduced below:
“125-A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.—A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,—
(i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of Section 33-A; or
(ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or
(iii) conceals any information,
in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of Section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of Section 33-A, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
In addition to the above, the aforesaid facts may also attract offences defined in Section 181 and 191 (punishable under Section 193) of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which are reproduced as under:
“181. False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or affirmation] to state the truth on any subject to any public servant or other person authorized by law to administer such oath or affirmation, makes, to such public servant or other person as aforesaid, touching that subject, any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.
Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.”
Depending upon actual facts and circumstances of the case, certain other offences may also perhaps be attracted in this case.
The cognizance taken by the court into the alleged false information submitted by the Central Minister Smriti Irani in her election affidavits, may intensify the demand for her resignation as a Minister from the Union Cabinet. It is noteworthy that in the case of a similar controversy of fake degrees of Jitender Singh Tomar, Law Minister of Delhi, he had to face arrest and had to resign from the ministry.
