Section 123(3) and sectarian appeals in elections: majority limits the phrase "his" to candidates, not voters.

Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was construed in light of the 1961 amendments and the related anti-sectarian provisions to preserve the secular character of elections. The majority held that the provision is quasi-criminal and requires strict reading, but that its purpose supports a contextual interpretation: the pronoun "his" refers to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or rival candidate, not the voter. A separate provision, Section 123(3A), addresses promotion of enmity between classes of citizens. The dissent took the broader view that the voter is also covered by "his".

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "his" in Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 refers only to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or rival candidate, or also includes the religion, race, caste, community or language of the voter; and whether Section 123(3) must be given a broad purposive construction to curb sectarian appeals in elections.

Analysis: Section 123(3) was construed in the setting of the 1961 amendment and the contemporaneous insertion of Section 123(3A) and Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, all of which reflected a legislative policy to curb communal and separatist tendencies and preserve the secular character of the electoral process. The majority held that the provision is quasi-criminal and must be read strictly, but strictness does not preclude a purposive reading where the text, history and constitutional context support it. On that reading, the words "on the ground of his religion" qualify the candidate in whose favour votes are sought and the rival candidate against whom votes are solicited, and do not extend to the voter's religion. The majority distinguished earlier decisions to the extent they confined the provision to the candidate's religion, and held that Section 123(3) proscribes appeals based on the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or rival candidate, while Section 123(3A) separately addresses promotion of enmity or hatred between classes of citizens.

Conclusion: The expression "his" in Section 123(3) does not refer to the voter. An appeal for votes on the proscribed grounds is a corrupt practice only when it is founded on the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or rival candidate, and the reference was answered accordingly.

Dissenting Opinion: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. held that Section 123(3), properly construed in light of its text, legislative history and constitutional context, permits the broad prohibition of appeals based on religion, race, caste, community or language regardless of whether the reference is to the candidate or the voter. According to the dissent, the word "his" includes the voter, and a contrary reading would unduly narrow the anti-sectarian purpose of the provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 123(3) forbids an appeal to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or rival candidate, and the pronoun "his" does not extend to the voter.

---