Seeking votes in name of religion is corrupt practice: Supreme Court

SC made it illegal to seek votes in the name of religion, caste, race, community or language

In a landmark verdict seeking to separate religion, caste and other issues from politics, the Supreme Court, by a majority verdict, on Tuesday held as “corrupt” the practice of candidates appealing for votes on the basis of these identities included not only him but his agents and voters.

In a marked departure from the view held in the 1995 “Hindutva” judgement that the term 'his' used in section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act meant the religion, caste, etc of candidates only, a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur, by a majority of 4:3, held that any appeal for votes on these grounds would amount to “corrupt practice”.

The court held that the provisions of the RP Act, which say that seeking vote by a candidate in the name of “his” religion, caste, race, religion and language in the election law, included candidates, his agents and voters also.

“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.

The verdict came on a batch of petitions including the one filed by Abhiram Singh whose election as an MLA in 1990 on BJP ticket from Santacruz Assembly seat in Mumbai was set aside by the Bombay High Court.

Justice Lokur, writing for the majority, considered "simultaneous and contemporaneous amendments" made in the election law and insertion of Section 153A (promoting enmity in different groups) in the IPC to highlight the intention of the legislation that it wanted to curb use of religion, castes etc in election and otherwise.

The bench said that instead of literal, there should be purposive and broad interpretation of the RP Act provision.