New Delhi: In a landmark judgement, 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 judgement 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 from having any 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 of 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 the majority verdict written by Justice M.B. Lokur, said.
Supreme Court elaborates on appeals for votes
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.
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.
