Corrupt Electoral Practice: Involvement of Religion in Election Campaign

Disha Agrawal | ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad | 12th June 2020

Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen

Facts          

This is the case where the appeal of two cases has been clubbed together on the limited question of scope of section 123 of the Representative Act, 1951. Section 123(3) declares soliciting votes on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language as corrupt electoral practices.

In Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen case, Abhiram election to the No. 40 Santa Cruz Legislative Assembly Constituency in 1990 was challenged by Commachen on the ground corrupt electoral practices in the Bombay High Court. In 1992, when the appeal was heard before 3 judge bench, the court expressed the view regarding the interpretation of section 123(3) of RPA that it should be heard before 5 judge bench. 

In Narain Singh V. Sunderlal Patwa^[1] case, Sunderlal election to the Bhojpuri Constituency No. 245 in 1993 was challenged on the ground of corrupt practice and the appeal was dismissed. In the appeal before the Constitutional bench this case has been referred to larger bench of 7 judges.

Meanwhile, when the constitutional bench was hearing the Abhiram case, and come to know that similar case has been referred to larger bench, thereafter the court made order to refer Abhiram’s case also to the larger bench, as both case involve same question of interpretation of section 123(3) of RPA. And the case were heard together before 7 judge bench.

Issues Involved

1. The key question before the 7 judge bench is that whether the word ‘his’ in the section 123(3) also covers the religion, race, caste or community of the candidate only or of the voter also?
2. Whether provisions of section 123(3) violates Article 19(1)(a) of the candidate or not?

Judgement

The judgement was given in the 4:3 ratio of majority. Where the majority of judgement deliver by           Justice Lokur, where he stated that word ‘his’ can be used in both ways. That is, canvassing vote on the ground of religion- be it the candidate or his agent or any person permitted by candidate or on the grounds of the religion of voters, it will amount to “corrupt electoral practice”. The majority judgement gave a widened scope to the section 123(3). And it was held that the restriction imposed by this section is reasonable one and it does not violate Article 19(1)(a) of any person.

Whereas, the dissenting opinion Justice D Y Chandrachud, is that, widening the scope of ‘His’ is something deviating from the provision of its literal meaning, and secondly giving this section a wide scope will violate Article 19(1)(a) of the candidate. That is according to the dissenting opinion ‘his’ cannot be used in both ways, it can only be used for candidate but not voters.

Analysis

So according to this case, it conclude to the point that when it comes to the election there is no means of religion in that, whether it is of candidate or his agent or any person on his behalf or voters. No candidate can gain vote in the name of religion and if he do so it will amount to “corrupt electoral practice” and if it is proved it will straight away lead to the disqualification of the election. The majority of the bench is more focused on the purity of the electoral process, and the minority view is more focused on the reality of the section. Both views are somewhere or the other is correct in their own way.

^[1] AIR 1993 MP 214