TIA NEWS/ NEW DELHI
The Supreme Court today began hearing on the crucial issue of use of religion in elections held in the country. Apex court was hearing on a number of petitions to examine the question whether appeals in the name of religion and caste for garnering votes during election amounted to “corrupt practice” under the Representation of Peoples Act and could same be the ground for unseating a law maker.
In the course of the daylong hearing, the seven judges constitution bench comprising Chief Justice T.S.Thakur, Justices Madan B Lokur, S A Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao posed several questions to be addressed by the counsels appearing before it.
However, the constitution bench declined, for now, the plea by the Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ask the Attorney General to assist the court in the matter.
The bench felt that the issue before it concerned the election dispute, thus at this point of time, there was no necessity to seek the views of the Attorney General or that of the Central government on the issue.
The bench is examining whether use of words like “Hindutva” or “Hinduism” or any similar nomenclature amounted garnering votes by exploiting religious feelings of the voters.
Justice Bobde said that mobilising votes by invoking religious sentiments was destructive of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
“Making an appeal in the name of religion is destructive of Section 123 (3). If you make an appeal in the name of religion then you are emphasising the difference or you are emphasising the identity. It is wrong”, Justice Bobde observed.
Section 123 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 prohibits seeking votes by a candidate or his agent on ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, …
The hearing by the seven judges bench is rooted in the conflicting judgments delivered way back in 1995 and 1997 on the question whether seeking votes in the name of “Hindutva” or “Hinduism” amounted to exploitation of religion prohibited under Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
The bench asked senior counsel Arvind Datar – appearing for one the petitioners – whether by making an appeal in the name of religion are you not emphasising the identity of the candidate. The bench also asked when votes are moblised by invoking the religion or appealing to religious identity, would it not amount to seeking votes in the name of religion.
In another question, the bench asked, can mobilising votes by person from his community for a candidate belonging to another community amount to corrupt practice. The bench cited a hypothetical situation where a Muslim supporter of a Hindu candidate seeking votes from his community by invoking religion and fear of divine retribution if they don’t vote. And the vice versa situation.
Similarly there were questions on seeking votes by exploiting caste identities.
The court is having a relook at the 1996 judgment by which three judges bench in 1996 had held that Hinduism was a way of life and a state of mind and not a religion therefore by invoking Hinduism was not a corrupt practice.
It was on the strength of this judgment, the Supreme Court had reversed the unseating of nine BJP MLAs of Maharashtra assembly that included former Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi. However one case of Abhiram Singh is still pending as it was referred by the five judges’ bench to seven judges’ bench.
Abhiram Singh was elected to Maharashtra assembly in February 1990. His election was set-aside by Bombay High Court in December 1991 and since then his appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
Hearing will continue on Wednesday.