Religious appeal in elections prohibited where voters are urged to treat support as a religious duty.

Electoral appeals invoking religion are prohibited under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the substance and effect of the statements must be assessed from the standpoint of the ordinary voter. Religious communications may amount to a prohibited appeal where, in context, they are presented as carrying religious authority and are used to suggest that voting for a candidate is a religious duty or that voting otherwise is sacrilegious. On the evidence of meetings, publications and surrounding circumstances, the candidate was projected as the nominee of a religious body and voters were urged to support him as a Sikh religious obligation; the charge of corrupt practice was proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by appealing to voters on religious grounds through the alleged sponsorship by Akal Takht, the issue of the alleged Hukamnama, and speeches and publications urging votes on the basis of Sikh religion.

Analysis: The governing principle is that electoral appeals based on religion are prohibited and the court must assess the substance and effect of the statements or acts on the ordinary voter, not merely their form. A religious body or communication may amount to a religious appeal if, in context, it is presented as having religious authority and is used to suggest that voting for one candidate is a religious duty or that voting otherwise would be sacrilegious. The evidence of meetings, publications, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the candidate was projected as the nominee of Akal Takht and that voters were told that supporting him was a Sikh religious obligation. The court held that the probabilities relied on to negate the charge could not displace the direct evidence, particularly where a key participant who could have denied the allegations was not examined.

Conclusion: The charge of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) was proved against the returned candidate.

---