Indian SC Ruling: No use of religion in seeking votes
The Indian Supreme Court yesterday outlawed seeking votes in the name of religion, caste, race, community or language, a landmark judgment ahead of crucial assembly elections in five states where faith and caste are top poll issues.
Headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur, a seven-judge bench said the secular ethos of the constitution had to be maintained by keeping elections a secular exercise.
"Freedom to follow religion has nothing to do with the secular nature of the state. The relationship between man and god is an individual choice. The state is forbidden to have allegiance to such an activity,” the bench said.
The court said the function of an elected representative should be secular.
“Religion has no role in electoral process, which is a secular activity,” the judges added. “Mixing state with religion is not constitutionally permissible.”
Referring to the term “his religion” used in section 123(3) of the Representation of The Peoples (RP) Act, which deals with “corrupt practice”, Chief Justice TS Thakur and three others in the 4:3 verdict said it meant the religion and caste of all including voters, candidates and their agents etc.
However, the dissenting minority view of three judges -- UU Lalit, AK Goel and DY Chandrachud -- held that the term “his religion” means religion of candidate only.
It has been interpreted in an earlier verdict that the term “his religion” used in section 123(3) of the RP Act meant the faith of the candidates only.
Section 123(3) of the RP Act, which is being scrutinised, reads: "The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the 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..., for furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate" would amount to corrupt practices.
The majority view of the seven-judge constitution bench, also shared by Justices MB Lokur, SA Bobde and LN Rao, said “secularism” has to be considered while dealing with the issue.
The bench delivered the judgement, hearing a clutch of petitions in the 20-year-old Hindutva case, where an earlier apex court bench had observed that Hinduism is a way of life.
The judgment will have significant implications in states that go to the polls just months from now, especially in Uttar Pradesh, where the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya and caste-based mobilisation are top poll planks.
In Punjab too, religion and sacrilege are top campaign issues.
The verdict said elections can't be fought by making a pitch to the candidate's, opponents' or voters' religion, caste, race, community or language.
But the three dissenting judges said such a decision amounted to “judicial redrafting of the law” and said to prohibit people from articulating legitimate concerns reduced “democracy to an abstraction”.
“No government is perfect. The law doesn't prohibit dialogue or discussion of a matter which is concern to the voters,” the dissenters said.
The three judges added any such verdict would reduce democracy to an abstraction.
In October last year, a seven-judge bench of SC began debating the issue of whether appealing for votes in the name of religion amounted to corrupt practice under India's election laws. It then referred the issue to the constitution bench.
A three-judge bench headed by former chief justice JS Verma in 1995 had ruled that a mere reference to Hindutva or Hinduism wasn't a corrupt practice, as Hinduism was not a religion but a way of life in India.
The top court had then cleared nine top BJP leaders of the charge of appealing for votes in the name of religion.
On day one of the deliberations, the chief justice asked some searching questions to senior advocate Arvind Datar, who was appearing for some candidates facing the charge.
The bench wondered if a person belonging to one community sought votes from members of his community for a candidate belonging to another community, would that also come under the ambit of the election law.
The election law bars an appeal in the name of religion. If found guilty, a candidate can be disqualified. But the question before the bench in 1995 was whether the use of terms such as Hindutva or Hinduism per se would amount to such practice.
RELIGIOUS GROUPS HAIL VERDICT
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) said politics based on caste, community and religion had harmed the country.
“We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court,” VHP International General Secretary Surendra Jain said. “National integration has also been damaged by this practice”.
He added, “Vote bank politics should be curbed by this decision. This judgement may prove a landmark in nation-building.”
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH) said the prohibition to use religion to garner votes should be strictly implemented.
“Although the Supreme Court ruling was not something new as the existing law already bars people from stoking communal sentiments to get votes, but now this order should be implemented in letter and spirit,” JIH Secretary General Mohammed Salim Engineer said.
He said the Supreme Court taking notice of it was an evidence of the fact that such practice by political parties and candidates had been “rampant”.
[Based on reports of Hindustan Times, The Economic Times and The Tribune, India, with inputs from Pallab Bhattacharya, New Delhi Correspondent of The Daily Star]