Religious leaders appealing people to vote for a particular candidate or political party has seldom attracted a complaint of “corrupt practice” against the candidate who wins an election. But the Supreme Court on Tuesday felt that time was ripe to test whether such a situation could be termed as “corrupt practice” under the Representation of Peoples Act, sufficient to set aside the election of a winning candidate.
This question came upon Tuesday before a seven-judge Constitution Bench which has to define what is meant by “corrupt practice” provided under Section 123(3) of the RP Act. The provision defines corrupt practice to mean “the appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agency to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community, or language…for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.”
The bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur, Justices Madan B lokur, SA Bobde, Adarsh Goel, UU lalit, DY Chandrachud and lN Rao said, "If a religious leader invokes religion of his followers to appeal for votes or not to vote a particular candidate, will you not be seen as using religious bias to whip up feelings. Is it not a corrupt practice where you are appealing for the candidate with religion as the basis." The bench explored other possibilities where a religious leader in a masjid, temple, gurudwara or church can make a similar appeal to vote.
The issue fell squarely for consideration in two appeals where a candidate's election was set aside on the ground that the political leader of the party whom he represented made a speech supporting "Hindutva" amounting to corrupt practice.
The case related to two speeches made by Shiv Sena founder late Bal Thackeray and former BJP leader late Pramod Mahajan invoking voters during the 1990 Maharashtra Assembly elections. The Bombay High Court set aside the election of 10 persons in 1991. later the Supreme Court reversed the HC order in the case of nine persons holding that "Hindutva" is a way of life. The lone person left out was Abhiram Singh, whose petition was referred to the 7-judge Bench.