2017 (1) TMI 1419 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of 'his' in Election Law: Religion, Race, Caste, Community, or Language

The court concluded that in interpreting Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the pronoun 'his' refers to the religion, race, ... Interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Corrupt practices during the election process - Appeal made to an elector by a candidate or his agent or by any other person - Held that:- The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are required to be read and appreciated in the context of simultaneous and contemporaneous amendments inserting sub-section (3A) in Section 123 of the Act and inserting Section 153A in the Indian Penal Code. So read together, and for maintaining the purity of the electoral process and not vitiating it, sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be given a broad and purposive interpretation thereby bringing within the sweep of a corrupt practice any appeal made to an elector by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate on the ground of the religion, race, caste, community or language of (i) any candidate or (ii) his agent or (iii) any other person making the appeal with the consent of the candidate or (iv) the elector. It is a matter of evidence for determining whether an appeal has at all been made to an elector and whether the appeal if made is in violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. No case has been made out to take a view at variance with the settled legal position that the expression “his” in Section 123(3) must mean the religion, race, community or language of the candidate in whose favour an appeal to cast a vote is made or that of another candidate against whom there is an appeal to refrain from voting on the ground of the religion, race, caste, community or language of that candidate. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 has undergone several parliamentary amendments. Parliament would be aware of the interpretation which has been placed by this Court on the provisions of Section 123(3). Despite this, the provision has remained untouched though several others have undergone a change. In the meantime, elections have been held successfully, governments have changed and majorities have been altered in the house of Indian democracy. There is merit in ensuring a continuity of judicial precedent. The interpretation which has earlier been placed on Section 123(3) is correct and certainly does not suffer from manifest error. Nor has it been productive of public mischief. No form of government is perfect. The actual unfolding of democracy and the working of a democratic constitution may suffer from imperfections. But these imperfections cannot be attended to by an exercise of judicial redrafting of a legislative provision. Hence, we hold that there is no necessity for this Court to take a view at variance with what has been laid down. The ‘his’ in Section 123(3) does not refer to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the voter. ‘His’ is to be read as referring to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate in whose favour a vote is sought or that of another candidate against whom there is an appeal to refrain from voting. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Legislative history and amendments to Section 123(3).3. Judicial precedents and their impact on the interpretation of Section 123(3).4. Constitutional principles and their influence on the interpretation of Section 123(3).5. The role of strict construction in interpreting penal and quasi-criminal statutes.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the pronoun 'his' in Section 123(3). The provision states that an appeal by a candidate or his agent, or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of 'his' religion, race, caste, community, or language constitutes a corrupt practice. The debate is whether 'his' refers to the religion, race, caste, community, or language of the candidate or that of the voter.2. Legislative History and Amendments to Section 123(3):The original Section 123(3) required a 'systematic appeal' to vote or refrain from voting on grounds of caste, race, community, or religion. The 1956 amendment broadened the scope by including appeals by any person with the consent of the candidate. The 1961 amendment removed the word 'systematic,' added 'language' to the grounds, and inserted the word 'his' before 'religion, race, caste, community or language.' The legislative intent behind these amendments was to curb communal and separatist tendencies and to widen the scope of corrupt practices.3. Judicial Precedents and Their Impact on the Interpretation of Section 123(3):Several decisions have interpreted Section 123(3). In Kanti Prasad Yagnik v. Purshottamdas Patel, the court held that 'his religion' refers to the religion of the candidate. This interpretation was reaffirmed in Dr. Ramesh Yashwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, where the court stated that the word 'his' must be construed to refer to the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited or of the rival candidate against whom votes are sought to be refrained. The same view was upheld in Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Harmohinder Singh Pradhan v. Ranjit Singh Talwandi.4. Constitutional Principles and Their Influence on the Interpretation of Section 123(3):The Constitution of India is secular, and secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, must be interpreted in a manner that upholds this principle. The Constitution does not recognize any religion as the state religion and mandates equality among all religions. The legislative intent behind Section 123(3) is to maintain the purity of the electoral process by prohibiting appeals based on religion, race, caste, community, or language. The interpretation of 'his' to refer to the candidate's religion aligns with this constitutional mandate.5. The Role of Strict Construction in Interpreting Penal and Quasi-Criminal Statutes:Election petitions alleging corrupt practices are quasi-criminal in nature and require strict interpretation. The standard of proof is higher than that in civil cases and is akin to the standard in criminal trials. The principle of strict construction mandates that if two reasonable interpretations are possible, the one that exempts the subject from penalty should be adopted. This principle supports the interpretation that 'his' refers to the candidate's religion, as it avoids an overly broad application of the statute.Conclusion:The interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should be that the pronoun 'his' refers to the religion, race, caste, community, or language of the candidate for whom votes are solicited or of the rival candidate against whom votes are sought to be refrained. This interpretation aligns with the legislative history, judicial precedents, constitutional principles, and the rule of strict construction. The court should not broaden the scope of the provision beyond what was intended by the legislature.