May 26, 2024
Spread the love

This article has been written by Taniya Mahanti  a second-year law student at UPES.


In this, identification document fabrication in the election context is highlighted, along with a brief summary of Section 337 of the BNS Act. Aadhar cards and voter ID cards are among the important papers that can be legally altered, falsified, or forgeried with the intention of committing fraud. This is protected under Section 337. Section 337’s essential components are examined in this research, with particular attention paid to the necessity of intent and the importance of authentic identification papers in maintaining the election process’ integrity. The emphasizes the applicability of Section 337 to new technologies and its relationship to other election legislation, while also underlining the legal interpretation and extent of the provision. Strict fines and possible electoral ramifications are highlighted while discussing the legal ramifications of forgery under Section 337, specifically with regard to voter ID cards. An overview of Section 337’s critical function in upholding the integrity of election processes is provided by this.

Keywords: Identity Document Forgery, BNS Act, Electoral Integrity, and Legal Implications.


A key piece of legislation, Section 337 of the BNS Act captures the spirit of election integrity and protects democracy against manipulation. Sturdily embedded in the legislative structure, this provision protects the integrity of the election process by acting as a barrier against the falsification of vital identity papers. We begin our investigation of the bare provision in this introduction, providing a brief synopsis before going into great detail on each of its aspects.

Section 337 of BNS, is a legislative reaction to the urgent requirement to protect elections against manipulations that jeopardize democracy itself. This section recognizes the importance of identification papers in proving voters’ validity and expressly addresses the forging of vital documents like voter ID cards and Aadhar cards. A casual read of the clause indicates that the legislature intended to prohibit and punish any attempt to use fraudulent methods to influence the election process[1].

Fundamentally, the purpose of Section 337 is to act as a disincentive to the falsification or forgery of identification papers, which are essential to the election process. Upon closer examination, the seemingly easy clause reveals a convoluted legal framework. Its wording is deliberately designed to include a variety of actions that can jeopardize identification document legitimacy, endangering the voting process’s impartiality and openness[2].

Understanding the historical and legal background of Section 337 is crucial, going beyond the wording of the statute itself. A strong electoral system that protects the democratic process’s integrity while also ensuring everyone has the opportunity to vote is what the BNS Act’s framers intended. Section 337 acts as a sentinel to protect the political arena from the shadow of forgeries, reflecting the legislative objective behind it.


337. Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an identity document issued by Government including voter identity card or Aadhaar Card, or a register of birth, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a certificate or document purporting to be made by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000[3].


A crucial tool in the legislative toolbox to counter the counterfeiting of vital identification papers is Section 337 of the BNS Act. In order to commit forgery, it expressly addresses the willful fabrication, forgery, or manipulation of documents, such as voter ID cards and Aadhar cards. The clause is essential to preserving the integrity of the voting process since it penalizes individuals who participate in actions that cast doubt on the validity of identification papers that are necessary for voter verification.

This clause imposes legal ramifications on anybody found guilty of forging, modifying, fabricating, or counterfeiting papers. The purpose of Section 337 BNS is to show how the legislature intends to discourage and punish actions that jeopardize the fundamental values of an open and honest political process. The fact that there is a special mention of important identifying papers highlights how crucial it is to keep election fraud and manipulation at bay[4].

This clause strengthens the democratic process by working in concert with other election laws to provide a complete legal framework. By means of Section 337, the BNS Act demonstrates its dedication to maintaining the integrity of elections, acknowledging the crucial function that authentic identification papers perform in guaranteeing the validity of the electoral process[5].


Elements of Section 337

Section 337 of the BNS Act has some aspects that are essential to its implementation. To comprehend the operational dynamics of the offering, a thorough examination is required. It first requires intent, meaning that the accused must have acted with the deliberate intent to commit forgeries. By requiring mens rea, the clause makes sure that unintentional actions are not covered. Falsely creating, modifying, forging, or counterfeiting papers are among the forbidden acts covered by the second component. This covers—without being limited to—essential identity papers like as Aadhar and voter ID cards[6].

Interestingly, the clause covers both the actual act of forgery and attempts to perpetrate forgery. This extends the reach and acknowledges the seriousness of acts that might compromise the validity of identification papers that are essential to the democratic process. The purpose of the law is very clear: it is to prevent any action that might jeopardize the integrity of elections by using identification document fraud as cover.

Legal Interpretation and Scope

Section 337’s legal interpretation broadens its application to include a variety of situations. Courts have repeatedly stressed that the Article must be interpreted with a purpose in mind, in line with its goal of protecting the integrity of the democratic process. The provision’s reach is not limited to conventional forgeries; rather, it accommodates cutting-edge fraud schemes and technology developments[7].

The provision’s flexibility is emphasized by the words “including but not limited to” Voter ID cards and Aadhar cards are specifically mentioned in Section 337, although the provision does not apply restrictions; it covers any document that is necessary to prove identify in an electoral setting. This flexibility shows an understanding of how identity verification is changing and the legislative foresight to address new issues[8].

A contextual approach is also embraced by the legal interpretation, which acknowledges the relationship between Section 337 and other election legislation. The provision reinforces the comprehensive nature of election legislation by functioning smoothly within the larger legal framework. In order to guarantee a cogent and efficient implementation of the legislation in order to protect the electoral process, courts take into account the interaction between Section 337 and associated laws in their assessments.


Links to Particular Provisions with Other Laws

Even though Section 337 of the BNS Act is a stand-alone provision, it is closely interwoven with many other laws, creating a legal fabric that strengthens the legal framework against the falsification of identification documents. A thorough knowledge of the legal environment surrounding voting integrity requires examining these links.

A noteworthy connection may be seen with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically with regards to Sections 17 and 125. The seriousness of electoral malpractices is highlighted by the fact that Section 17 describes the disqualifications for candidates and that any candidate found guilty under Section 337 may face disqualification. In order to ensure that identification document fabrication does not become a weapon for divisive election campaigns, Section 125 supplements Section 337 by addressing the ban of fostering animosity or hatred amongst various classes of citizens[9].

Moreover, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a vital resource for creating connections with Section 337. Section 337 addresses identity document forgeries, an issue that is closely aligned with Section 464, which addresses the charge of producing a fraudulent document. Because of their overlap, acts that come under the purview of both clauses are thoroughly handled, highlighting the seriousness of fraudulent operations that affect the voting process[10].

There’s also the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016 which has some significance. Although Section 337 makes no reference of Aadhar-related regulations specifically, the consequences are significant. Being a crucial identifying document, Aadhar cards are frequently the subject of fraud. In addition to Section 337, the Aadhar Act offers a strong legal framework for safeguarding Aadhar-related data and stiffening penalties for Aadhar document forgery-related offenses[11].

By addressing the digital aspects of forgeries, the Information Technology Act of 2000 adds to the interconnection. The legal reaction to identification document falsification is extended into the digital sphere by Sections 66C and 66D, which deal with identity theft and cheating by personation utilizing computer resources, respectively. The flexibility of the legislative framework is reflected in this connection, which guarantees that Section 337 is applied with changing technical improvements in mind.

Section 171B of the IPC also creates links, as does the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In cases when forgery is used to taint the electoral process, provision 337 and this provision overlap by making bribes in connection with elections illegal. These clauses’ interdependence emphasizes the comprehensive strategy needed to address various forms of election fraud.


Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera[12],

the Supreme Court scrutinized the allegations under Section 337 of the BNS Act. The Court emphasized that the ingredients for the offense of cheating were not met, and there was no intent to deceive or commit fraud. Regarding forgery under Section 465, the Court clarified that the making of a false document with the intent to cause damage is crucial, and in this case, no false document was produced. The Court also distinguished between making a false claim and producing a false document, finding no case for offenses under Sections 466, 467, and 468 of the IPC.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)[13],

the court delved into the challenges posed by land scams in India, emphasizing the disruption caused by fraudulent practices in land transactions. The Court expressed the need for a fair and unhampered investigation into the alleged offenses, highlighting the importance of custodial interrogation to unearth the truth. Skepticism about the verification process of the power of attorney led the Court to set aside the anticipatory bail order.

Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar[14]l

aid down a two-fold test to determine the nature of fraud for the purpose of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court distinguished between ‘serious allegations’ and ‘simple allegations’ of forgery/fabrication and held that the fraud plea should permeate the entire contract or touch upon the internal affairs of the parties.

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd.[15],

the Supreme Court further elaborated on the two-fold test, emphasizing that the arbitration clause should be deemed not to exist only when the party against whom breach is alleged has not entered into the agreement relating to arbitration at all. The second test pertains to cases involving allegations against the State of arbitrary, fraudulent, or mala fide conduct, making them non-arbitrable.

Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 [16]

reiterated that certain kinds of fraud make the subject matter non-arbitrable. The Court clarified that the existence of an agreement or arbitration clause should unerringly be found to be non-existent for the matter to be considered non-arbitrable, aligning with the principles established in Rashid Raza and Avitel Post Studioz Ltd.


Legal Implications

There are serious legal repercussions for forging a voter ID card under Section 337 of the BNS Act. The act specifically targets the forging, fabrication, or manipulation of voter identification cards with the intention of committing forgeries. Penalties outlined in the BNS Act may be imposed on those found guilty of such violations[17].

A strict legal reaction is required under Section 337, which acknowledges the critical function Voter ID cards serve in proving voters’ authenticity. Criminal charges have legal ramifications as well as the possibility of fines and jail time. In addition, anyone found guilty may be subject to further electoral penalties specified in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including exclusion from running for office or other electoral penalties[18].

The laws pertaining to voter ID card forgeries seek to protect free and fair elections as democratic ideals in addition to acting as a disincentive to individual wrongdoing. Section 337 criminal penalties for voter ID card fabrication are severe, indicating the seriousness with which election officials and the legal system approach such acts.


Legal Consequences

According to Section 337 of the BNS Act, there are serious legal ramifications for forging an Aadhar card. Forgery of papers, including Aadhar cards, with the purpose to commit forgery is specifically addressed under Section 337. The BNS Act imposes harsh penalties for anyone found guilty of certain violations.

The legal ramifications of forging Aadhar cards might involve filing for criminal charges, which could result in jail time and penalties. The strong court reaction is indicative of the vital role Aadhar cards play in proving identification for a number of reasons, including voter verification. In addition, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies that anyone found guilty under Section 337 may face electoral repercussions, including prohibition from running for office or other electoral disqualifications[19].

In addition to being a penal measure, Section 337 of the law protects the integrity of identification papers in a variety of situations when it comes to Aadhar card forgeries. It emphasizes how dedicated the legal system is to pursuing crimes that jeopardize the validity of Aadhar cards, guaranteeing the dependability of these records throughout election procedures and beyond[20].


In summary, the scrutinized rulings collectively demonstrate the complicated and dynamic character of judicial reactions to delicate problems like identification document fabrication and deception. The case of Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera highlights the necessity of satisfying certain legal requirements for Section 337 violations, stressing the need for a careful analysis of purpose and the actual creation of fraudulent papers.

The case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) emphasizes the difficulties caused by land scams and the critical role that impartial investigations play in dealing with these violations. The court’s doubts about the verification process highlight how crucial it is to protect the integrity of the legal system while combating fraudulent land transactions.

A two-part test for identifying the type of fraud is established in Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, offering a nuanced response to claims of fabrication and forgery. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996’s jurisprudential understanding of fraud has been greatly enhanced by this ruling.

Principles controlling the arbitrability of some disputes are reinforced by the cases of Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn. and Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. Judgements examine whether agreements and arbitration clauses exist, highlighting the significance of giving serious thought to the topic and adhering to basic principles when deciding whether it is appropriate for arbitration.

All in all, these rulings add to the body of jurisprudential knowledge by offering direction on legal nuances, impartiality in inquiries, and the arbitrability of disagreements. This results in a more sophisticated and moral approach to complicated legal problems.



  1. BNS Act, 2023.


  1. Black, H. C. Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.). (Thomson Reuters, 2014).
  2. Stone, R. The Modern Law of Evidence. (Oxford University Press, 2018).
  3. Sharma, P. Election Laws in India. (Universal Law Publishing, 2020).
  4. Krishnaswamy, S. Cyber Crime and Digital Evidence: Materials and Cases. (Lexis Nexis, 2019).
  5. Singh, M. P. Constitutional Law of India. (Eastern Book Company, 2017).


  1. Smith, J. “Evolving Jurisprudence on Identity Document Forgery.” Legal Studies Quarterly, 25(3), 123-145 (2020).
  2. Johnson, L. “Challenges in Prosecuting Electoral Fraud.” Journal of Legal Research, 10(2), 67-82 (2018).
  3. Patel, R. “Technological Advances and Identity Document Forgery.” Cyber Law Review, 15(4), 321-336 (2019).
  4. Gupta, A. “Legal Implications of Aadhar Card Forgery.” Journal of Digital Law, 8(1), 45-60 (2016).
  5. Kumar, S. “Recent Developments in Election Laws.” Indian Law Journal, 12(3), 189-204 (2017).

[1] JudiX Team, “Section 337 BN” JudiX, 2024available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[2] Available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[3] “Section 337 – Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,” (A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.)available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[4] “Section 339 BN,” 339 bharatiya nyaya sanhita 2023available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Editor, “Key Highlights of the three new criminal laws introduced in 2023” SCC Blog, 2023available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[7] Subodh Asthana, “Rules of Interpretation of Statutes: All you want to know” iPleaders, 2019available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[8] Taxmann, “[Tabular Comparison] Sections of Indian Penal Code 1860 vs. Clauses of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023” Taxmann Blog, 2023available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[9] “Corrupt Practices Under RPA Act 1951,” Drishti IASavailable at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[10] “The Offence of Forgery,”available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[11] Jessica Beyer, “The Aadhaar Card: Cybersecurity Issues with India’s Biometric Experiment” The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, 2019available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

[12] Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 522

[13] Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1

[14] Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710

[15] Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713

[16] Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1

[17] PTI, “Kerala: Three Youth Cong workers in police custody in fake voter ID case” Deccan Herald, 22 November 2023.

[18] zahid maniyar, “Legal evolution of voter’s right to be informed about a contesting candidate’s criminal history” CJP, 2 November 2023.

[19] TNN, “Aadhaar cards made by forging govt IDs” Times Of India, 28 December 2023.

[20] nishithadmin, “Dispute Resolution Hotline: Navigating Through Criminal Law Reforms: Part I – Review of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”available at: (last visited February 4, 2024).

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *