1995 (12) TMI 422 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Election Act Sections, Clarifies 'Hindutva' & 'Hinduism'

Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo and Ors. Versus Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Ors.

The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stating they ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.2. Interpretation of the terms 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism.'3. Compliance with Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.4. Whether the speeches made by Bal Thackeray constituted corrupt practices under Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The appellants contended that Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 are constitutionally invalid as they violate the guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was argued that these provisions should be read as reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order to get the protection of Article 19(2). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the restriction imposed by these provisions is limited to the election period and does not affect the general freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that these provisions are constitutionally valid as they impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of decency and morality, which are permissible under Article 19(2).2. Interpretation of the Terms 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism':The Court clarified that the terms 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism' are not to be narrowly construed as religious terms alone. They are indicative of the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos. The Court emphasized that mere reference to these terms in an election speech does not automatically bring it within the net of Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 unless the speech can be construed as an appeal to vote for a candidate on the ground of his religion or to refrain from voting for a candidate on the ground of his religion.3. Compliance with Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The appellants argued that the notice given to Bal Thackeray under Section 99 was not in conformity with the provision and that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 99. The Court found that the notice was given after the entire evidence had been recorded, and the noticee was given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, call evidence in his defense, and be heard. The Court held that there was no non-compliance with Section 99 as the noticee had the same opportunity as a party to the petition to defend himself against the charge of corrupt practice.4. Whether the Speeches Made by Bal Thackeray Constituted Corrupt Practices Under Sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act:The Court examined the contents of the three speeches made by Bal Thackeray on 29-11-1987, 9-12-1987, and 10-12-1987. The Court found that the speeches made clear appeals to the Hindu voters to vote for Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo because he is a Hindu, and derogatory references were made to Muslims. The Court held that these speeches amounted to corrupt practices under Sub-section (3) of Section 123, and the first speech also constituted a corrupt practice under Sub-section (3A) of Section 123. The Court concluded that Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo and Bal Thackeray were guilty of these corrupt practices, and the election of Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo was declared void.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for political leaders to maintain decency and propriety in their election campaigns to preserve the secular polity and cultural heritage of India. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the Court.