<b>Letters</b>: Finding a balance

Apropos the editorial, “In defence of secularism” (January 4), the majority judgment by the Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Thus, an appeal by poll candidates based on voters’ religious, linguistic or caste identity could now be considered a corrupt practice. 

The dissenting judgment, on the other hand, asserts that religion, caste and languages are social realities, which are recognised and acknowledged in the Constitution, and states that it would not be appropriate to prohibit candidates from speaking of the legitimate concerns and aspirations of various religious, social and linguistic groups. 

As argued in the editorial, speeches and mobilisation with respect to such issues could be done during the electoral process, without being considered a corrupt practice. However, while endeavouring to widen the definition Section 123(3), perhaps, precision and clarity have been lost and subjectivity introduced. The verdict could, therefore, be subjected to other interpretations. It will now be left to the wisdom of individual judges how they interpret the applicability of the apex court judgment.

The fundamental principle of democracy should be that the people’s mandate is respected. Also, it is wrong to presume that voters are inherently gullible and prone to get carried away by religious/linguistic appeals.

The judgment may lead to a plethora of litigations, several of which could be on flimsy and frivolous grounds. Therefore, utmost care should be taken by the judiciary while invalidating a popular mandate.

Pramod Patil   Nashik