Every appeal for votes in the name of religion whether it is by the candidate, his agent, the party or by anyone should be forbidden to protect democracy and ensure purity in the election process, argued senior counsel and former Union law minister Kapil Sibal in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Mr Sibal made this submission before 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, hearing the important question of law, viz whether seeking votes in the name of religion will amount to a “corrupt practice” within the meaning of Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act warranting disqualification.
Mr Sibal, appearing for the defeated candidate C.D. Commachem (since dead), submitted that restricting the Section 123 (3) R.P. Act only on appeal by a candidate to voters in the name of religion will result in serious consequences when divisive forces have started emerging in the last few years.
When the CJI posed a question to Mr Sibal “a particular candidate belongs to one religion. The opposite candidate belongs to another religion. The election agent of the candidate belongs to another religion. The person making the speech in the name of religion to further the prospects of the candidate belongs to a different religion than that of the voters in the area. Does it mean that an appeal on religious ground is permissible ” Mr Sibal said such an appeal is not permissible as the court should not go by the limited and restricted meaning in Section 123 (3) of the RP Act.
Elaborating further, Mr Sibal said regardless of the fact whether the appeal is made by the candidate or his agent or anyone else, ultimately the candidate is the beneficiary in the election and hence a larger meaning and interpretation should be given by the court to the Section 123 (3) of the RP Act. In this age of internet, and fast communication, anyone can spread communal and casteist agenda and people will easily fall a prey to such information, he said.
Mr. Sibal pointed that prior to the amendment to the RP Act, systematic appeal by a candidate, his agent or any other person was prohibited but after the amendment in 1961, only appeal by a candidate on religious grounds to vote for him or note to vote for his opponent is prohibited. If restricted meaning is given, it will result in opening the floodgates for dissemination of information by divisive forces to pursue their political agenda, he said.
When the CJI waned to know whether an appeal by a candidate to vote for Dalits is permissible, Mr. Sibal said since Constitution has given protection to Dalits any appeal for their advancement is permissible. Mr. Sibal also faulted the apex court’s earlier judgment holding that announcement of freebies and other sops in the election manifestoes by political parties is not an offence as it is not related to the candidate.
Mr. Sibal said time has come for this court to revisit this judgment by a Bench of five judges as the judgment has resulted in political parties saying anything in their manifestoes including their communal agenda as nothing is attributed to the candidate. The CJI intervened and said each case may differ. What will eventually be an appeal in the name of religion should be left to be decided in each case and we can only look into the scope of Section 123 (3) of the RP Act. Mr. Sibal said the dimension of this section are much larger than before and if restricted meaning is given to this provision divisive forces are bound to exploit the religious sentiments of people to garner votes and court should not allow the divisive agenda to succeed. Arguments will continue on Thursday.
