Religious appeals in election campaigning can amount to corrupt practice where they exploit communal hostility and faith-based voter persuasion.

An election petition was upheld where the affidavit was not defective, the pleaded particulars were sufficient, and an amendment merely clarified the allegations without introducing a new corrupt practice. The Court further held that speeches appealing for votes on the basis of religion, attacking a rival on religious grounds, and exploiting communal hostility fall within the statutory prohibitions on corrupt electoral practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Tape recordings, transcripts, and corroborative oral evidence were accepted as reliable. The election setting aside the result was sustained, with only the costs order modified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the election petition was liable to fail for want of a proper affidavit, insufficient particulars, or impermissible amendment. (ii) Whether the appellant's speeches amounted to corrupt practices under Section 123(2), Section 123(3), and Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the election petition was liable to fail for want of a proper affidavit, insufficient particulars, or impermissible amendment.

Analysis: The affidavit accompanying the petition was not shown to suffer from any defect of form. The objection regarding particulars was treated as abandoned and, in any event, the speeches were set out in sufficient detail to meet the requirement of material facts and full particulars. The amendment was held to have clarified the petition by removing ambiguity and by confining the allegations to the statements actually made by the appellant, without introducing a fresh corrupt practice.

Conclusion: The objections to the maintainability of the election petition were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's speeches amounted to corrupt practices under Section 123(2), Section 123(3), and Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was held to prohibit the use of religion, religious symbols, and appeals to communal hostility as instruments of electoral success. On the evidence, the appellant's speeches repeatedly attacked the rival candidate on religious grounds, portrayed him as unfit to represent the electorate because of his supposed faith and practices, and appealed to voters to support the appellant because he alone represented true religion. Certain speeches also promoted hostility between religious communities and treated the contest as a struggle for religion itself. The tape recordings, transcripts, and corroborative oral evidence were accepted as reliable and admissible.

Conclusion: The appellant was held guilty of corrupt practices under Section 123(2), Section 123(3), and Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits, the finding setting aside the election was sustained, and only the order as to costs was modified.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election, an appeal for votes on the ground that one candidate is a true adherent of a religion and the rival is not, or an appeal that exploits religious animosity or communal hostility, falls within the statutory prohibition against corrupt electoral practices.

---