Illegal to seek votes in name of religion: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday held that seeking votes in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language amounted to corrupt practice and the election of a candidate is liable to be set aside whether such an appeal was made by the candidate, his/her agent or anyone on his/her behalf.

The court rejected arguments that a distinction has to be made between appeal from the candidate for himself and a similar appeal on his behalf by others. The court said there may be several circumstances when appeals are made in the name of religion during elections and this will straightway attract disqualification.

A seven-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justices M.B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde, A. K. Goel, Uday Lalit, D. Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswar Rao, delivered this judgment by a majority of 4:3.

The majority view held that relationship between man and god is an individual choice and the state is forbidden to have allegiance to such an activity.

“Religion has no role in electoral process, which is a secular activity... Mixing state with religion is not constitutionally permissible,” the judges said.

“An appeal in the name of religion, race, caste, community or language is impermissible under the RP Act, 1951 and would constitute a corrupt practice sufficient to annul the election in which such an appeal was made regardless whether the appeal was in the name of the candidate’s religion or the religion of the election agent or that of the opponent or that of the voter’s,” the CJI, who concurred with majority verdict written by Justice M.B. Lokur, said.

At present, Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act bars candidate or his agent from seeking votes in the name of religion.

With Monday’s ruling, the apex court gave a wider meaning to the provision to include all forms of appeal in the name of religion whether it is by the candidate or his agent or leaders of the party or anyone else with or without the knowledge of the candidate.     

Hours after the court verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing an election rally in Lucknow, said, “There may have been a time when castes were important, you all have endured the politics of caste and religion. I appeal to you all to rise above this and vote for progress and development.”

Most political parties, including the Congress, the Left, RJD and AAP said they were happy with the judgment and called for its strict enforcement.

Some, however, added that more clarity was needed.

Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Manoj Jha said that as far as caste was concerned, there was a grey area and that needed to be underlined. Casteism and speaking about inequality are two different things, so I would urge the Supreme Court to look at this grey area which can be used by the political parties with huge resources to put such parties in perpetual legal quagmire.

The court ruling comes just months ahead of elections in Uttar Pradesh where the two issues of religion and caste generally dominate campaigns.

Assembly elections are also due in Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur. And the judgment could force political parties to change their election strategies.

The dissenting judgment by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, while agreeing that seeking votes by invoking religion, race, caste, community and language was a corrupt practice, said prohibiting people in electoral fray from speaking about the legitimate concerns of the people reduced democracy to abstraction.

Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the dissenting judges, said that no government system was “perfect”, and that there was no law that prohibited dialogue and discussion on the issues that concerned voters and the same should not be construed as an appeal to gain votes.

Pointing out that there should be no judicial drafting of the law, he said in his 55-page dissenting judgment, “No form of government is perfect… But these imperfections cannot be attended to by an exercise of judicial redrafting of a legislative provision. Hence, we hold that there is no necessity for this court to take a view at variance with what has been laid down.”

It also noted the success with which elections have been held so far.