http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 34  

PETITIONER: DR. RAMESH YESHWANT PRABHOO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI PRABHAKAR KASHINATH KUNTE & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1995

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SINGH N.P. (J) VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1113            1996 SCC  (1) 130  JT 1995 (8)   609        1995 SCALE  (7)1

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2835 OF 1989 Bal Thackeray V. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Others                           JUDGMENT J.S. VERMA, J. :      Both these  appeals  are  under  Section  116A  of  the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as  "the Act/R.P.  Act’) against  the judgment  dated 7th April, 1989  of the  Bombay High  Court in Election petition No. 1  of 1988  by which the election of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo,   the   returned   candidate   from,   Vile   Parle Constituency to  the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, held on 13th December, 1987, has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act. The appellant has been  found quality  of the corrupt practices prescribed by sub-Sections  (3) and  (3A) of  Section 123 of the Act at the election,  in that  he and  his agent Bal Thackeray with his consent appealed for votes on the ground of the returned candidate’s religion  and that  they promoted  or tended  to promote feelings  of enmity  and  hatred  between  different classes of  the citizens of India on the grounds of religion and community.  Consequently, Bal  Thackeray, after a notice issued under  Section 99  of the  Act to  him, has also been named for  commission  of  these  corrupt  practices.  Civil Appeal No.  2836 of  1989 is  by the  returned candidate Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo and Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 1989 is by Bal Thackeray against that judgment.      The said  election was  held on 13th December, 1987 and the result was declared on 14th December, 1987, at which Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo was declared to be duly elected. The charge of  these corrupt  practices is based on three public speeches delivered by Bal Thackeray : on 29.11.1987 at Parle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 34  

(opposite Shiv  Sena Shaka  No. 84),  on 9.12.1987  at Khar- Danda near  Shankar Temple,  and on  10.12. 1987 at Jaltaran Maidan, Vile  Parle  (East).  The  public  speech  given  on 9.12.1987 has  been held  to amount  to the corrupt practice under sub-section  (3) of Section 123, while public speeches delivered on  29.11.1987 and 10.12.1987 have been held to be corrupt practices under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of  the Act.  The relevant  pleading relating  to  these corrupt practices  is contained  in paras  6 and  8  of  the election petition.  Sub-para (a)  to (d) of para 6 relate to first speech,  sub-para (e)  of para  6  relates  to  second speech and  sub-para (f)  of para 6 relates to third speech. Para 8  of the  election petition  then says  that  returned candidate indulged in the corrupt practices provided by sub- sections (3)  and (3A)  of  Section  123  of  the  Act  and, therefore, his election is void.      After the  election petitioner closed his evidence, the returned candidate  Dr. Prabhoo  examined  only  himself  in rebuttal. After  close of  the evidence  of the  parties and hearing arguments  of both  sides, the  High  Court  ordered issue of notice under Section 99 of the Act to Bal Thackeray who filed  an affidavit in reply to the notice. the election petitioner and  his three witnesses were recalled for cross- examination by  counsel for  the notice,  Bal Thackeray. The notice did  not examine  himself on  any  other  witness  in rebuttal. The  decision of  the High  Court is based on this material.      Dr. Prabhoo  was set  up as  candidate of the Shiv Sena which was then not a recognised political party for purposes of the  Legislative Assembly  elections end,  therefore, Dr. Prabhoo’s  candidature   was   shown   as   "Shiv   Sena   - Independent". Bal  Thackeray is  the top leader of Shiv Sena and he  participated in the election campaign of Dr. Prabhoo as the  main speaker  in his  capacity as the leader of Shiv Sena. The  status of Bal Thackeray as the top leader of Shiv Sena  has   never  been   disputed.  The  gist  of  election petitioner’s case  which has  been found  proved by the High Court is  that the three public speeches of Bal Thackeray in the election  campaign of  Dr.  Prabhoo  were  all  in  very intemperate language  and incendiary  in nature  which  were appeals to the voters to vote for Dr. Prabhoo because of his religion, i.e.,  he being  a Hindu,  and the  speeches  also promoted or  tended to  promote enmity  and  hatred  between different classes  of the citizens of India on the ground of religion. The High Court has held this charge of the alleged corrupt practices  proved against the returned candidate Dr. Prabhoo and  Bal Thackeray. Accordingly, the election of the returned candidate  has been  declared to  be  void  on  the ground contained  in Section  100(1) (b) of the Act, and Bal Thackeray has  been named  in accordance  with Section 99 of the Act. Hence these appeals by them.      The averments  in  para  6  of  the  election  petition alleging the  commission of  corrupt  practices  within  the meaning of  Section 123  of the  Act are in sub-paras (a) to (f) which are as under:-           "(a) The  petitioner   states  that      respondent  No.1   during  his  election      campaign indulged  in corrupt  practices      by appealing himself, or by his election      agents, or  by his  supporters with  his      consent to  vote him  and  refrain  from      voting other  candidates on  the grounds      of religion. The whole tenor of election      propaganda of  the respondent  No.1  was      that he  is a  candidate of  Hindus  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 34  

    Hindus  should   vote  him   alone.  The      details of  this appeal are given in the      later part of this petition.           (b)  The   respondent   No.1,   his      election agents  and his supporters with      the consent  of the candidate respondent      NO. 1  also indulged in corrupt practice      by  promoting   and  by   attempting  to      promote feelings  of enmity  and  hatred      between different classes of citizens of      India on  grounds of religion, community      and  language.   The  examples  of  this      corrupt practice  are also listed in the      later part of this petition.           (c)  The campaign  for the election      of respondent  No.1 was  headed by  Shri      Balasaheb Thackeray,  the leader  of the      Shiv Sena, who had put up respondent No.      1  in   this  election.  Shri  Thackeray      addressed  several   meetings  and  also      issued  press   statements  during   the      course of  the election in question. Out      of these  meetings Shri  Thackeray spoke      on 29.11.1987  at a meeting held at Shiv      Sena Shaka  no 84  at Vile  Parle, which      took place  from 9  P.M. to 12 midnight.      In   this    meeting   Shri    Balasaheb      Thackeray,  Suryakant   Mahadik   Pramod      Navalkar,   Ramesh    Mehta,    Madhukar      Sarpotdar and  the candidate  respondent      No. 1  Dr. ramesh  Prabhoo himself  were      also present. Shri Thackeray uttered the      following words during this meeting. The      words are quoted in Marathi and they are      followed by the English translation.      Translation:  "We   are  fighting   this      election for the protection of Hinduism.      Therefore, we  do not care for the votes      of the  Muslims. This country belongs to      Hindus and will remain so."           Since  the   petitioner   was   all      throughout in  the constituency  for his      election campaign, he came to know about      the said  meeting having  been held  and      attended   by    Shri   Bal   Thackeray.      Subsequently, he also came to know about      the speeches  made in  the meeting  from      his friends  and active  workers of  the      Party.  The   petitioner  has   reliably      learnt that  the police  reporters  also      attended the meeting and they have taken      down the  report of  the speeches  made.      The petitioner  craves leave to call for      the record  of  the  speeches  from  the      Police Department and to prove the point      by examining  the police  reporters  who      have  taken   down  the   speeches.  The      petitioner craves leave to rely upon the      said police report in the custody of the      Police.  A  report  regarding  the  said      meeting and the speeches appeared in the      newspaper  "Mumbai   Sakal"  (A  Marathi      daily)   dated    1.12.1987   with   the      photographs under  the title "Hindu Dev-      devtavareel  Teeka   Sahan  Karnar  Nahi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 34  

    Thackeray" (We  will  not  tolerate  the      criticism of  Hindu gods and goddesses -      Thackeray). From  the said photograph it      is clear  that respondent No. 1 was also      present in  the said  meeting. Thus  all      the utterances  regarding  the  speeches      made  by  Bal  Thackeray  to  appeal  to      voters in the name of Hindu religion are      with the  consent and  connivance of the      first respondent.  The same  meeting was      also reported in ‘Sanj Tarun Bharat’ (an      evening daily)  dated 30.11.87  with the      photograph of Shri Thackeray, respondent      NO. 1  and others  on the dias. The said      photograph further  shows that  a banner      was put  up on  the dias  which reads as      under:-      "Garva Say Kaho (OM) Ham Hindu Hai"           The said  meeting was also reported      in ‘Sandhyakal’,  another Marathi daily,      on 1.12.87.  Hereto annexed  and  marked      Exhibit ‘B’  and ‘B-1’  is the  original      report appearing  in ‘Sanj Tarun Bharat’      with  English   translation  and  hereto      annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ and ‘C-1’      is  the   said   report   appearing   in      ‘Sandhyakal’ with English translation.           (d)  The  petitioner  says  that  a      report regarding  the said  meeting also      appeared in  the ‘Urdu  Times’, an  Urdu      daily published from Bombay in its issue      dated 1.12.87.  The petitioner  does not      know  how   to  read   and  write  Urdu.      However,  he   got   the   said   report      translated. In the said ‘Urdu Times’ the      report appeared  with  the  title  ‘Shiv      Sena  ko  Musalmano  ke  votoki  zarurat      nahin hai’  (Shiv Sena  did not need the      votes  of   Muslims).  A   true  English      translation of  the said  news  item  is      annexed hereto  and marked  Exhibit  ‘D’      and ‘D-1’  with  a  zerox  copy  of  the      report in Urdu.           (e)  Again  on  9.12.87  there  was      another  election   meeting  which  took      place from  9 a.m.  to about 12 midnight      at Khar-Danda, near Shankar Temple. This      meeting  was   addressed  by   Shri  Bal      Thackeray,  respondent   No.  1,  Harish      Chandra  Dattaji   Salvi  (a  Shiv  Sena      leader)   and    Shambhoo   Maharaj,   a      religious leader  from Gujarat.  In  the      said meeting  Shri Bal  Thackeray, while      addressing the  audience stated as under      :-      Translation: "Hinduism  will triumph  in      this election and we must become hon’ble      recipients of  this victory  to ward off      the danger  on  Hinduism,  elect  Ramesh      Prabhoo to join with Chhagan Bhujbal who      is already  there. You  will find  Hindu      temples underneath  if all  the  mosques      are dug  out. Anybody who stands against      the   Hindus   should   be   showed   or      worshipped with  shoes. A  candidate  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 34  

    name Prabhoo should be led to victory in      the name of religion."           The  petitioner   says   that   the      proceedings of  the  said  meeting  were      recorded  by   the   police.   Newspaper      reports  regarding   the  meeting   also      appeared.  The   petitioner  will  crave      leave to  and rely  upon the  records of      the police  and also  the  press  report      giving the  version of  the said meeting      appearing in various newspapers.           (f)  The petitioner  says  that  on      10.12.87 a  meeting was held from 9 p.m.      to  about  12  midnight  at  Vile  Parle      (East) at  Shahaji Raje  Marg. This  was      addressed  by   S/Shri  Bal   Thackeray,      Shambhoo Maharaj,  Ramesh  Mehta,  Rishi      Kapoor,  Jitendra   Madhukar  Joshi  and      Ramesh Prabhoo,  respondent  No.  1.  In      this meeting  Shri Thackeray uttered the      following  words  while  addressing  the      meeting :-      Translation :  "We have  come  with  the      ideology of  Hinduism.  Shiv  Sena  will      implement  this  ideology.  Though  this      country  belongs   to  Hindus,  Ram  and      Krishna are  insulted. (They) valued the      Muslim votes more than your votes; we do      not want  the Muslim votes. A snake like      Shahabuddin  is  sitting  in  the  Janta      Party, man  like Nihal  Ahmed is also in      Janata Party.  So the  residents of Vile      Parle should  bury  this  party  (Janata      Party)."           The above utterances in these three      meetings are  the examples  of promoting      the feelings of enmity between different      classes of  citizens of  India. the sole      purpose  in  doing  so  and  making  the      appeal was  to canvas votes in favour of      the first  respondent on  the ground  of      religion  and  make  it  appear  to  the      voters that  respondent No.  1  was  the      only  person  who  could  represent  the      Hindu community.  The effect of the said      speeches was  to promote the feelings of      enmity and  hatred  between  Hindus  and      non-Hindus on  the ground  of  religion,      race, caste,  community etc. As such the      petitioner and  most of  the respondents      from 1  to 13  are Hindus,  having  full      faith in  the Hindu  religion. The  main      ground  of   objection  on  the  way  of      canvassing for votes by respondent No. 1      and his  supporters  was  to  bring  the      element  of   religion   into   politics      endangering the  very foundation  of the      Constitution of  India, viz. secularism.      The petitioner honestly believes that it      is  one   thing  to   follow  one’s  own      religion according to his own conviction      and  another  thing  to  appeal  to  the      voters  to  vote  in  the  name  of  the      religion."      Reliance was  placed  by  the  election  petitioner  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 34  

certain  news   items  wherein   the  public  speeches  were published and  also on  certain reports alleged to have been made by  some police  officers who  reported these making of the  speeches   raising   some   controversy   relating   to sufficiency of pleadings and the use of material for proving the contents  of the  speeches in  excess of the exact words pleaded  in   the  election   petition.  Details   of   this controversy would  be mentioned later while considering that point. However, it may be mentioned that the extent to which there  is  specific  pleading  and  the  returned  candidate himself admitted  the contents  of the  public speeches  can safely be  considered subject to the objection raised of the alleged legal  infirmities including  want of a valid notice under Section  99 of  the Act  to the  notice Bal Thackeray. More details  of the  evidence would  be  mentioned  at  the appropriate stage.      Broadly stated, the contentions of Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel  for the  appellants in  these appeals are : (1) Sub-sections  (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act are constitutionally invalid  being violative  of  guarantee  of free speech  in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (2) To save both  these provisions  from constitutional invalidity, they must be read as reasonable restrictions in the interest of public  order to  get the  protection of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.  In other  words,  unless  the  speech  is prejudicial to  the maintenance  of public  order, it cannot fall within the net of either sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) of  Section 123  of the  Act; (3) In sub-section (3) of Section 123,  the emphasis  is on the word "his"10 preceding the word  "religion" and its significance must be understood in the  light of  the  restricted  scope  of  the  provision indicated by the Union Law Minister during the Parliamentary debates to  explain the  object of  introduction of the word "his" in the provision. In other words, only a direct appeal for votes  on the  ground of  "his" religion  subject to its tendency to  prejudice the  maintenance of  Public order  is contended to  be the  limited scope  of sub-section  (3)  of Section 123;  (4) A  speech in which there be a reference to religion but no direct appeal for votes on the ground of his religion, does not come within the net of sub-section (3) of Section 123;  (5) The  public speeches  in question  did not amount to appeal for votes on the ground of his religion and the substance  and main thrust thereof was "Hindutava" which means the  Indian culture and not merely the Hindu religion; (6) The  public speeches  criticized the anti-secular stance of the  Congress Party  in practising discrimination against Hindus and  giving undue  favour to  the minorities which is not an appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu religion; (7) On behalf  of the  notice  Bal  Thackeray,  it  was  further contended that  there was  no compliance of the requirements of  Section   99  of   the  Act,   inasmuch  as  the  notice contemplated by  the provision  was not given and the notice was never informed of the precise charge against him. It was submitted that  the notice  given was not in conformity with the law  and particulars  required to  be given by the court were never  given, the  High Court  having merely  asked the petitioner to  indicate the particulars of the charge of the corrupt practice; and (8) that the pleadings in the election petition  are   deficient  being   devoid  of  the  material particulars and,  therefore, the  material brought in at the stage of  evidence and  relied on  to prove  the  charge  of corrupt practice  has to  be  excluded  from  consideration. Learned counsel  for the  appellant also  made the grievance that the High Court had decided the election petition mainly on the basis of the general impressions and vague assertions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 34  

made by  the election  petitioner instead  of confining  the decision to the precise pleadings and the legally admissible evidence examined in the light of the true meaning and scope of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act.      In reply.  Shri Ashok  Desai, learned  counsel for  the respondent refuted  these contentions. He submitted that the question of  constitutional validity of the provisions is no longer res  integra being  concluded by  the decision of the Constitution Bench in Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Others vs. Lachhi Ram  and Others,  1955 (1) SCR 608. Alternatively, he contended that  the freedom  of  speech  guaranteed  in  the Constitution does  not extend to giving speeches of the kind given by  Bal Thackeray  and, at  any rate, these provisions impose reasonable  restrictions on  the  freedom  of  speech which are  saved by  Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Shri Desai also  submitted that  the substance and main thrust of the speech,  not merely  the form,  has to  be seen  in  its context to determine if it amounts to an appeal for votes on the ground  of ‘hiss’  religion, and  such appeal  need  not necessarily be  only direct.  Learned counsel submitted that each one  of the  speeches in question was highly incendiary containing appeal  to vote for Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo because he is a  Hindu; and it also tended to promote enmity and hatred between Hindus  and Muslims.  According to  him, each one of the speech  amounted to the corrupt practice both under sub- sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Act. Meaning of  sub-sections (3)  and (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.      Sub-sections (3)  and (3A)  of Section  123 of the R.P. Act are as under:-           "123.  Corrupt   practices.  -  The      following shall  be deemed to be corrupt      practices for  the purposes  of this Act      :-      xxx               xxx                xxx      (3)  The 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  of      language or  the use  of, or  appeal  to      religious symbols  or  the  use  of,  or      appeal to, national symbols, such as the      national flag  or the  national  emblem,      for the  furtherance of the prospects of      the election  of that  candidate or  for      prejudicially affecting  the election of      any candidate:           Provided that  no  symbol  allotted      under this  Act to  a candidate shall be      deemed to  be a  religious symbol  or  a      national symbol for the purposes of this      clause.      (3A) The promotion  of,  or  attempt  to      promote, feelings  of enmity  or  hatred      between   different   classes   of   the      citizens  of   India   on   grounds   of      religion,  race,  caste,  community,  or      language, by a candidate or his agent or      any other  person with  the consent of a      candidate or  his election agent for the      furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  the      election  of   that  candidate   or  for      prejudicially affecting  the election of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 34  

    any candidate.      xxx              xxx                 xxx      The submission  of Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned counsel for the  appellants is  that the  appeal to  vote or refrain from voting  for any person on the ground of ‘his’ religion, etc. for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate  or for  prejudicially affecting the election of any  candidate, means  a direct appeal to vote or refrain from voting  on the  ground of ‘his’ religion, etc.; and the appeal must  also be  provocative  in  nature  to  adversely affect public  order. The  further element of adverse effect on public  order, it  is urged, is implicit in the provision to save it from constitutional invalidity, which argument is considered separately.  Shri Jethmalani laid emphasis on the word ‘his’  which was  inserted by  Act 40  of  1961  w.e.f. 20.9.1961 when  the existing sub-section (3) was substituted for the  old sub-section (3). Shri Jethmalani contended that the object  of insertion  of the  word ‘his’  in  the  newly substituted sub-section  (3) was  to restrict the meaning of the provision  and confine  it only to a direct appeal based on ‘his’ religion. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on the statement  of the Law Minister during the debates in the Parliament to  support this submission. In reply, Shri Ashok Desai, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the word ‘his’  no doubt  has significance, but its use does not confine the  meaning of  sub-section (3)  only to  a  direct appeal on  the ground of ‘his’ religion, etc. and extends to an appeal  of which the main thrust in the context is on the religion of  the candidate.  Shri Desai  submitted  that  an unduly restricted meaning cannot be given to sub-section (3) since the  object of the provision is to prohibit appeal for votes during  the election  on the ground of religion of the candidate.      There can  be no doubt that the word ‘his’ used in sub- section (3)  must have significance and it cannot be ignored or equated  with the  word ‘any’  to bring within the net of sub-section (3)  any appeal  in which there is any reference to religion. The religion forming the basis of the appeal to vote or  refrain from voting for any person, must be of that candidate for whom the appeal to vote or refrain from voting is made.  This is  clear from  the plain  language  of  sub- section (3)  and this  is the  only manner in which the word ‘his’ used  therein can  be construed.  The expressions "the appeal .....  to vote  or refrain from voting for any person on the  ground of his religion, ..... for the furtherance of the prospects  of the  election of  that  candidate  or  for prejudicially affecting  the election of any candidate" lead clearly to  this conclusion.  When the  appeal is to vote on the ground  of ‘his’  religion for  the furtherance  of  the prospects of  the election of that candidate, that appeal is made on  the basis of the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. On the other hand when the appeal is to refrain from  voting for  any person  on the ground of ‘his’ religion for  prejudicially affecting  the election  of  any candidate, that  appeal is  based on  the  religion  of  the candidate whose  election  is  sought  to  be  prejudicially affected. It  is thus  clear that for soliciting votes for a candidate, the  appeal prohibited  is that  which is made on the ground  of religion  of the candidate for whom the votes are sought;  and when  the appeal  is to refrain from voting for any  candidate, the  prohibition is against an appeal on the ground  of the  religion of  that other  candidate.  The first is a positive appeal and the second a negative appeal. There is  no ambiguity  in sub-section  (3) and  it  clearly indicates the  particular religion  on the basis of which an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 34  

appeal to  vote or  refrain from  voting for  any person  is prohibited under sub-section (3).      The argument  that such  an appeal  must  be  a  direct appeal, such  as ‘Vote  for A  because he is a Hindu’ or ‘Do not vote for B because he is a Christian’, and that no other appeal leading  to that  conclusion is  forbidden, does  not appeal to reason. What is forbidden by sub-section (3) is an appeal of this kind and, therefore, any appeal which amounts to or  leads to  this inference must necessarily come within the prohibition  in sub-section  (3). Whether  a  particular appeal is  of this kind, is a question of fact in each case. Where the words used in the appeal are clear and unambiguous amounting to a direct appeal, the exercise of construing the speech  is   not  needed.   However,  where   a   reasonable construction of  the appeal  leads to  that conclusion,  the result must be the same. The substance of the speech and the manner in which it is meant to be understood by the audience determines its nature, and not the camouflage by an artistic use of  the language.  For  understanding  the  meaning  and effect of  the speech,  the context  has to  be found in the speech itself and not outside it with reference to any other background unless the speech itself imports any earlier fact in the context of that speech. the speech has also not to be construed in the abstract or in the manner in which it would be construed after an academic debate. Care must be taken to remember that  the public  speeches during election campaign ordinarily are addressed to audience comprised of common men end, therefore,  the manner  in which it would be understood by such an audience has to be kept in view.      We  are   unable  to  accept  the  submission  of  Shri Jethmalani that  a further  element of prejudicial effect on public order, is implicit in sub-section (3). We do not find anything in  the language  of the  provision  to  read  this further  element  into  it.  Sub-section  (3)  in  substance forbids appeal  for votes for any candidate on the ground of ‘his’ religion  and appeal  to refrain  from voting  for any other candidate  on the ground of the religion of that other candidate. Obviously  the purpose  of enacting the provision is to  ensure that  no candidate  at an  election gets votes only because  of his religion and no candidate is denied any votes on the ground of his religion. This is in keeping with the secular  character of the Indian polity and rejection of the scheme  of separate electorates based on religion in our constitutional scheme.  An appeal  of the  kind forbidden by sub-section (3)  based on  the religion of a candidate, need not  necessarily   be  prejudicial   to  public  order  and, therefore, the further element of likelihood of prejudice to public order  is unnecessary,  on account of which it is not implicit in  the provision.  This, according  to us,  is the meaning and the correct construction of sub-section (3). The question of constitutional validity of the provision on this meaning is considered later.      Reference may  now be made to the Parliamentary debates in which  the reason  ascribed by the Law Minister Shri A.K. Sen for  adding the  word ‘his’  in sub-section  (3) and its purpose was stated, thus -           "Shri A.K.  Sen: I  added the  word      ‘his’ in  the Select  Committee in order      to make  quite clear  as to what was the      mischief  which   was   sought   to   be      prevented under this provision."      xxx              xxx                 xxx           "Shri A.K.  Sen:  The  apprehension      was expressed  if one’s  right was going      to be  curbed by this section. If such a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 34  

    right was  going to  be  curbed  by  the      section, I  would have been against such      an amendment,  because after  all, it is      the right  of a  person to propagate his      own language, his own particular culture      and various other matters. But that does      not mean  vilifying another  language or      creating enmity between communities."      xxx                xxx               xxx           "Shri A.K. Sen: .....           I am  pained to hear Shri Hynniewta      giving expression  to  an  apprehension,      which to  me  seems  entirely  baseless.      That apprehension  is to the effect that      clause 23  will deprive him of his right      to propagate  his language  or  preserve      his language, which cannot be taken away      from him  as he  himself has  quoted the      relevant article of the Constitution. If      that right is taken away by the Bill, it      will  be  struck  down  as  contravening      article 19  and the  section will not be      given   effect    to   by   any   court.      Fortunately,  this   country  is   still      governed by  the rule  of  law  and  the      courts of law have the last say in these      matters."      xxx                xxx               xxx           "Shri A.K. Sen: That is a different      matter. With  due respect  to  the  hon.      Member, he  has not  really  appreciated      the rationale  of  the  Supreme  Court’s      decision.  With   regard   to   election      matters, Parliament  is  free  to  enact      such legislation  as it  thinks best and      Chapter III  does not  come in.  That is      the decision  of the  Supreme Court. But      in the  quais of  framing  an  electoral      law, no fundamental right of the citizen      can be  taken away.  That is  what I  am      saying.  The  right  to  preserve  one’s      language cannot  be  taken  away  by  an      election  law.   That  is  as  clear  as      daylight."      xxx                xxx               xxx           "Shri A.K.  Sen: You cannot make it      an election  issue if  you say,  ‘Do not      vote for  him. He  is a  Bengali’ or ‘Do      not vote for him. He is a Khasi’. I made      it unequivocally  clear that  it is  the      purpose and  design of this House and of      the country to ensure that. No man shall      appeal  only   because   he   speaks   a      particular language and should get voted      for that  reason; or no man shall appeal      against  a   particular  person  to  the      electorate solely  because that opponent      of his speaks a particular language."      xxx               xxx                xxx           "Shri A.K.  Sen: They  are entitled      to do  so. The  Constitution gives  them      the right to do so. But we are on a very      narrow point,  whether we  shall  extend      the right  to a  person, to  a voter, to      say: vote  for me because I speak Hindi,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 34  

    I speak Gharwali, or I speak Nepali or I      speak Khasi;  or in  the alternative, do      not vote for my opponent because he is a      man who speaks this particular language,      his own  language. It  is on  that  sole      narrow point  that  the  prohibition  is      sought to be made.           ..... But  we are  not here  on the      aesthetics of language or the philosophy      of language;  nor are  we here to debate      the fundamental  rights of  a citizen to      preserve his  own language  and culture.      Fortunately, that is guaranteed to every      man and  woman in this country as it not      elsewhere. ...."      xxx                xxx               xxx           "Shri A.K. Sen: .....           But the problem is, are we going to      allow a  man to go to the electorate and      ask for  votes  because  he  happens  to      speak a  particular language  or ask the      electorate to  refrain from voting for a      particular person  merely on  the ground      of his speaking a particular language or      following a  particular religion  and so      on? IF not, we have to support this. The      preservation of  the  minority’s  rights      and so  on is  a different  and a  wider      question."      xxx               xxx                xxx           "Shri A.K.  Sen: .....  But, if you      say that  Bengali language  in this area      is being  suppressed or  the schools are      being  closed   as  Shri  Hynniewta  was      saying, because  they bore  a particular      name, then, you are speaking not only to      fight in  an election  but you  are also      really   seeking    to    protect    you      fundamental rights,  to preserve you own      language  and   culture.   That   is   a      different matter.           But, if  you say,  ‘I am a Bengali,      you are  all Bengalis,  vote for me’, or      ‘I am  an Assamese  and so  vote for  me      because you  are Assamese speaking men’.      I think,  the entire  House will deplore      that as  a  hopeless  form  of  election      propaganda. And,  no  progressive  party      will  run  an  election  on  that  line.      Similarly, on the ground of religion. In      the olden days, what speeches we used to      hear in  Muslim League gatherings ! They      were purely  appeals on  the  ground  of      religion. So,  the issue  is too  narrow      and not  a wide  issue in which the life      and death  of minorities are involved as      Shri Hynniewta sought to make out. It is      not at all in question. ...."                           (emphasis supplied)      The clarification  given  in  the  speech  of  the  Law Minister clearly  shows that  a speech for the protection of fundamental rights,  preservation of  own language, religion and culture,  etc. are  not forbidden  by sub-section (3) of Section  123,   and  the  limit  is  narrow  to  the  extent indicated.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 34  

    It cannot  be doubted  that a  speech  with  a  secular stance  alleging   discrimination  against   any  particular religion and  promising removal  of the  imbalance cannot be treated as an appeal on the ground of religion as its thrust is for  promoting secularism.  Instances given in the speech of discrimination against any religion causing the imbalance in the  professed goal  of secularism,  the allegation being against any  individual or  any political  party, cannot  be called an appeal on the ground of religion forbidden by sub- section (3).  In other words, mention of religion as such in an election  speech is  not forbidden  by sub-section (3) so long as  it does  not amount  to an  appeal to  vote  for  a candidate on  the ground  of his religion or to refrain from voting  for  any  other  candidate  on  the  ground  of  his religion. When  it is said that politics and religion do not mix, it merely means that the religion of a candidate cannot be used  for gaining  political mileage  by seeking votes on the ground  of the  candidate’s religion  or alienating  the electorate against  another candidate  on the  ground of the other candidate’s religion. It also means that the state has no religion and the State practises the policy of neutrality in the matter of religion.      In Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Others etc. etc. vs. Union of India  and Others  etc., (1994) 6 SCC 360 (Ayodhya case), the  Constitution   Bench,  after   a  detailed  discussion, summarised the  true concept  of secularism under the Indian Constitution as under :-           "It    is     clear    from     the      constitutional scheme that it guarantees      equality in  the matter  of religion  to      all individuals  and groups irrespective      of their faith emphasising that there is      no religion  of the  State  itself.  The      Preamble of  the  Constitution  read  in      particular  with   Articles  25   to  28      emphasises  this  aspect  and  indicates      that it is in this manner the concept of      secularism     embodied      in      the      constitutional scheme as a creed adopted      by  the   Indian  people   has   to   be      understood    while     examining    the      constitutional    validity     of    any      legislation on  the  touchstone  of  the      Constitution. The  concept of secularism      is one  facet of  the right  to equality      woven as  the central  golden thread  in      the fabric  depicting the pattern of the      scheme in our Constitution."                                 (at page 402)      It cannot  be doubted  that an  election speech made in conformity with the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed under  Articles 25  to 30  of  the  Constitution, cannot be  treated as  anti-secular to be prohibited by sub- section (3)  of Section  123, unless  it  falls  within  the narrow net  of the  prohibition  indicated  earlier.  It  is obvious that  a speech referring to religion during election campaign with  a  secular  stance  in  conformity  with  the fundamental right to freedom of religion can be made without being hit  by the  prohibition contained in sub-section (3), if it  does not  contain an appeal to vote for any candidate because of  his religion  or to  refrain from voting for any candidate because  of his  religion. When  it is  said  that politics and religion do not mix, it obviously does not mean that even such permissible political speeches are forbidden. This is  the meaning  and true  scope of  sub-section (3) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 34  

Section 123 of the Act.      We would  now consider  the meaning of Sub-section (3A) of Section  123. This  sub-section also  was inserted  along with the  substituted sub-section  (3) by  Act  40  of  1961 w.e.f. 20.9.1961.  The meaning  of this  sub-section is  not much in  controversy. Sub-section (3A) is similar to section 153-A of  the Indian  Penal Code.  In sub-section  (3A), the expression used is "the promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of  enmity or  hatred" as  against  the  expression "Whoever  ....   promotes  or   attempts  to  promote  ..... disharmony or  feelings of  enmity, hatred or ill-will ...." in Section  153-A, I.P.C. The expression ‘feelings of enmity or  hatred’  is  common  in  both  the  provisions  but  the additional words  in Section  153-A, I.P.C.  are ‘disharmony .... or  ill-will’. The  difference in the plain language of the  two   provisions  indicates   that  mere  promotion  of disharmony or ill-will between different groups of people is an offence  under Section  153-A, I.P.C.  while  under  sub- section (3A) of  Section 123 of the R.P. Act, it is only the promotion of  or attempt  to promote  feelings of  enmity or hatred, which  are stronger  words, that is forbidden in the election campaign.      The provision  is made  with the  object of curbing the tendency  to   promote  or   attempt  to  promote  communal, linguistic or  any  other  factional  enmity  or  hatred  to prevent the divisive tendencies. The provision in the I.P.C. as well  as in  the R.P.  Act for  this purpose  was made by amendment at  the same  time. The  amendment in the R.P. Act followed amendments  made in  the Indian  Penal Code to this effect in  a bid  to curb any tendency to resort to divisive means to  achieve success  at the  polls on  the  ground  of religion or  narrow communal or linguistic affiliations. Any such attempt  during the  election is  viewed with disfavour under the  law and  is made  a corrupt  practice under  sub- section (3A) of Section 123.      Shri Jethmalani  is right that in sub-section (3A), the element of  prejudicial effect  on public order is implicit. Such divisive  tendencies promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India tend to create public unrest and disturb public order. This is a logical inference to draw  on proof  of the  constituent parts  of sub-section (3A). The  meaning of  sub-section  (3A)  is  not  seriously disputed between  the parties  and, therefore,  it does  not require any  further discussion.  However, whether  the  act complained of  falls within the net of sub-section (3A) is a question of  fact in each case to be decided on the basis of the evidence led to prove the alleged act.      The  decision  in  Ziyauddin  Burhanuddin  Bukhari  Vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehta & Ors., 1975 (Suppl.) SCR 281, lends assurance to  the correctness of the construction made by us of these  provisions. The returned candidate Bukhari was the candidate of  Muslim League  while  the  defeated  candidate Shauket Chagla  was the  Congress candidate at the election. Both were  Muslims. The  returned candidate  Bukhari in  his appeal to  the voters  said that  Chagla was not true to his religion while  he himself  was a  true  Muslim.  The  clear implication of  the appeal  was that  Chagla was not true to his religion whereas Bukhari was, and, therefore, the voters should prefer  Bukhari. In  short, the  appeal for votes was made on  the ground  that Bukhari  was a staunch believer of the Muslim  religion as  against Chagla  who did not. It was this clear  appeal based  on the  ground of  the candidate’s religion which  was held to constitute the corrupt practices defined by  sub-sections (3)  and (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.  For this  purpose, the  true ambit  and scope  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 34  

these provisions was considered and indicated as under:-           "We propose  to indicate,  at  this      stage, what mischief the provisions were      designed  to   most   illuminating   and      certain  way   of  correctly  construing      these statutory provisions. We cannot do      so without  adverting to the historical,      political, and Constitutional background      of   our   democratic   set   up,   such      provisions are necessary in you opinion,      to sustain  the  spirit  or  climate  in      which the  electoral machinery  of  this      set up could work.           Our  Constitution-makers  certainly      intended to  set up a Secular democratic      Republic the  binding spirit of which is      summed up by the objectives set forth in      the preamble  to  the  Constitution.  No      democratic political  and social  order,      in which  the conditions  of freedom and      their progressive expansion for all make      some  regulation   of   all   activities      imperative,  could   endure  without  an      agreement on  the basic essentials which      could unite  and hold  citizens together      despite all the differences of religion,      race, caste,  community, culture,  creed      and language. Our political history made      it  particularly  necessary  that  these      differences, which can generate powerful      emotions  depriving   people  of   their      powers of  rational thought  and action,      should not  be permitted to be exploited      lest the  imperative conditions  for the      preservation of  democratic freedoms are      disturbed.      26   It seems  to us  that Section  123,      sub s. (2), (3) and (3A) were enacted so      as  to  eliminate,  from  the  electoral      process,  appeals   to  those   divisive      factors which arouse irrational passions      that run  counter to the basic tenets of      our Constitution,  and, indeed,  of  any      civilised political  and  social  order.      Due respect  for the  religious  beliefs      and practices,  race, creed, culture and      language of other citizens is one of the      basic  postulates   of  our   democratic      system. Under  the guise  of  protecting      your own religions, culture or creed you      cannot embark  on  personal  attacks  on      those of  others or  whip  up  low  hard      instincts and  animosities or irrational      fears between groups to secure electoral      victories. The  line has  to be drawn by      the Courts,  between what is permissible      and what  is  prohibited,  after  taking      into account the facts and circumstances      of each  case interpreted in the context      in  which   the   statements   or   acts      complained of were made.      xxx              xxx                 xxx           We have  to determine the effect of      statements proved to have been made by a      candidate, or,  on his  behalf and  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 34  

    his consent,  during his  election, upon      the minds  and feelings  of the ordinary      average voters  of this country in every      case  of  alleged  corrupt  practice  of      undue influence by making statements. We      will, therefore, proceed to consider the      particular facts of the case before us.      xxx                xxx               xxx           ....In other  words, Bukhari, apart      from  making  a  direct  attack  on  the      alleged religious  beliefs and practices      of the  Chagla family,  clearly conveyed      to the  hearers that Chagla was an unfit      person,  on  the  ground  of  his  mixed      religious  faith   and   practices,   to      represent  Muslims.   Bukhari  had  also      called upon  Muslims  to  unite  against      such  a  person  if  they  wanted  their      religion to  survive. The High Court had      very rightly  held that these statements      contravened the  provisions  of  Section      123 (3) of the act.      xxx               xxx                xxx           We do  not think  that  any  useful      purpose is served by citing authorities,      as the learned Counsel for the appellant      tried to  do, to  interpret the facts of      the case  before us by comparing them to      the very different facts of other cases.      In all such cases, the line has no doubt      to be  drawn with  care  so  as  not  to      equate possible  impersonal  attacks  on      religious bigotry  and intolerance  with      personal ones  actuated by  bigotry  and      intolerance.           As already  indicated  by  us.  our      democracy can  only survive if those who      aspire      to      become      people’s      representatives and  leaders  understand      the spirit  of secular  democracy.  That      spirit was  characterised by Montesquieu      long ago as one of "virtue". It implies,      as the  late Pandit Jawharlal Nehru once      said,  "self  discipline’.  For  such  a      spirit   to   prevail,   candidates   at      elections  have   to  try   to  persuade      electors by  showing them  the light  of      reason and  not by inflaming their blind      and disruptive  passions. Heresy hunting      propaganda  or   professedly   religious      grounds directed  against a candidate at      an  election   may  be  permitted  in  a      theocratic state  but not  in a  secular      republic like  ours. It is evident that,      if such  propaganda was  permitted here,      it would injure the interests of members      of religious  minority groups  more than      those of others. It is forbidden in this      country in  order to preserve the spirit      of  equality.   fraternity,  and   amity      between rivals  even  during  elections.      Indeed. such  prohibitions are necessary      in the  interests of  elementary  public      peace and order.      xxx               xxx                xxx

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 34  

         According to  his own  professions,      the appellant  wanted votes  for himself      on the  ground that he staunchly adhered      to  what   he  believed   to  be  Muslim      religion as  contrasted with  Chagla who      did not. There is no doubt whatsoever in      our  minds   that  the  High  Court  had      rightly found  the appellant  guilty  of      the corrupt  practices  defined  by  the      provisions of  Section 123  (2),  123(3)      and 123(3A)  of the  ACt by  making  the      various speeches  closely examined by us      also."                           (emphasis supplied) The meaning  of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 was understood and  indicated in  this decision,  in  the  above manner. Constitutional Validity  of sub-sections  (3)  and  (3A)  of Section 123      The next  question now  relates to  the  constitutional validity of  these provisions  on the  meaning  ascribed  to them.      Sub-section  (3A)  of  Section  123  is  undoubtedly  a provision  made   in  the   interests  of  public  order  or incitement to an offence because the promotion or attempt to promote feelings  of  enmity  or  hatred  between  different classes of  the citizens  of India  on any  of  the  grounds specified therein,  apart from  creating divisive  tendency, would also be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and may  amount to incitement to commission of offences. The freedom of  speech and expression guaranteed to all citizens under  Article   19(1)(a),  which   is  the   basis  of  the constitutional challenge  to this  provision, is  subject to clause (2) of Article 19 which permits the making of any law imposing reasonable  restrictions on  the exercise  of  this right in  the interests  of public order or incitement to an offence. For  this reason,  no further  attempt was  made to press  the  argument  of  challenge  to  the  constitutional validity of  sub-section (3A)  on the  construction we  have made of that provision.      The question  now is  of the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 123. We have already rejected the argument that  the element  of prejudicial  effect on public order is  implicit also  in sub-section (3) as it is in sub- section (3A).  According to Shri Ram Jethmalani, unless this element also  is read  into sub-section (3), it is violative of Article  19(1)(a) inasmuch  as clause  (2) of  Article 19 does not  save its  validity under  any of  the other  heads specified therein.      We have  construed sub-section  (3) of Section 123 as a restriction only  to the  extent that votes cannot be sought for a  candidate on  the ground  of his  religion, etc.  and similarly there  can be no appeal to refrain from voting for any person  on the same ground. In other words, an appeal to vote for a candidate or not to vote for him on the ground of his religion, etc. is the restriction imposed by sub-section (3). This  restriction is  in the law enacted to provide for the   conduct   of   elections,   the   qualifications   and disqualifications for  membership of the Houses, the corrupt practices and  other offences  at or in connection with such elections. The right to contest the election is given by the statute subject  to the  conditions prescribed  therein. The restriction is  limited only  to the  appeal for  votes to a candidate during  the election period and not to the freedom of speech  and expression  in  general  or  the  freedom  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 34  

profess, practise  and propagate  religion unconnected  with the election campaign.      It is  true, as  argued by  Shri Jethmalani,  that  the freedom of  speech and expression guaranteed to all citizens under Article 19(1)(a) is absolute subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed  by any  law saved  by  clause  (2)  of Article 19,  under one  of the  heads specified therein. The heads specified  in clause (2) of Article 19 are, therefore, several and  they are  intended to  cover  the  entire  area within which  the absolute freedom to say anything which the speaker may  alike would  not extend,  in keeping  with  the standards of  a civilized  society, the corresponding rights in others  in an  orderly society,  and  the  constitutional scheme.      The expression  " In  the interests  of" used in clause (2)  of  Article  19  indicates  a  wide  amplitude  of  the permissible  law   which  can  be  enacted  to  provide  for reasonable restrictions  on the exercise of this right under one of  the heads  specified therein, in conformity with the constitutional scheme.  Two of  the heads  mentioned  are  : decency or  morality. Thus  any law which imposes reasonable restrictions on  the exercise of this right in the interests of decency  or morality  is also  saved  by  clause  (2)  of Article  19.   Shri  Jethmalani  contended  that  the  words ‘decency or  morality’ relate  to sexual  morality alone. In view of the expression "in the interests of" and the context of election  campaign for a free and fair poll, the right to contest the  election being  statutory and  subject  to  the provisions of  the statute,  the words ‘decency or morality’ do not  require a  narrow or pedantic meaning to be given to these words. the dictionary meaning of ‘decency’ is "correct and tasteful  standards of  behaviour as generally accepted; conformity with current standards of behaviour or propriety; avoidance of  obscenity; and  the  requirements  of  correct behaviour" (The  Oxford  Encyclopedic  English  Dictionary); "conformity  to   the  prevailing  standards  of  propriety, morality, modesty,  etc.: and  the quality  of being decent" (Collins English Dictionary).      Thus, the  ordinary  dictionary  meaning  of  ‘decency’ indicates that  the action  must be  in conformity  with the current standards  of behaviour  or  propriety,  etc.  In  a secular polity,  the requirement  of  correct  behaviour  or propriety is  that an appeal for votes should not be made on the ground of the candidate’s religion which by itself is no index of  the suitability  of a  candidate for membership of the House.  In Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. and  Others Vs.  Director of  Public Prosecutions, 1972 (2) All  ER 898, the meaning of ‘indecency’ was indicated as under:      "....Indecency is not confined to sexual      indecency; indeed  it  is  difficult  to      find any  limit short  of saying that it      includes  anything   which  an  ordinary      decent man  or woman  would find  to  be      shocking, disgusting and revolting...."                                 (at page 905)      Thus, seeking votes at an election on the ground of the candidate’s religion  in a  secular State,  is  against  the norms of decency and propriety of the society.      In our  opinion, the saving in clause (2) of Article 19 permits the  imposition of  reasonable restrictions  on  the exercise of  the right  conferred  by  Article  19(1)(a)  by making any  law in the interests of decency or morality; and sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act, as construed by us,  has the protection of clause (2) of Article 19 under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 34  

the head ‘decency’ therein. This conclusion is reached by us even if it is assumed that the provision is not saved merely as a  condition subject  to which  the  statutory  right  of contesting an  election is  available to  the candidate. The fact that the scheme of separate electorates was rejected in framing the Constitution and secularism is the creed adopted in the constitutional scheme, are relevant considerations to treat this  as a  reasonable restriction  on the  freedom of speech and  expression,  for  maintaining  the  standard  of behaviour  required  in  conformity  with  the  decency  and propriety of  the societal  norms. Viewed  at in any manner, sub-section  (3)  of  Section  123  cannot  be  held  to  be unconstitutional. This  view is  also  in  accord  with  the nature of  right to  contest an  election, as  understood in Jamuna Prasad  Mukhariya  and  Others  vs.  Lachhi  Ram  and Others, 1955 (1) SCR 608.      The argument  assailing the  constitutional validity of sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 is rejected. Meaning of ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’      The  next   contention  relates   to  the   meaning  of ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’ and the effect of the use of these expressions in the election speeches.      We have  already indicated  the meaning  of sub-section (3) of  Section 123  of the  R.P. Act  and the  limit of its operation. It  may be  said  straightaway  that  any  speech wherein these  expressions are  used, irrespective  of their meaning, cannot  by itself  fall within  the ambit  of  sub- section (3)  of  Section  123,  unless  the  speech  can  be construed as an appeal to vote for a candidate on the ground that he is a Hindu or to refrain from voting for a candidate on the  ground of  his religion, i.e., he not being a Hindu. We have  also indicated  that mere reference to any religion in an  election speech  does not  bring it within the net of sub-section (3)  and/or sub-section  (3A)  of  Section  123, since reference  can be  made to any religion in the context of secularism  or  to  criticise  any  political  party  for practising discrimination  against any  religious  group  or generally for  preservation of the Indian culture. In short, mere use  of the word ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ or mention of any other  religion in  an election speech does not bring it within the net of sub-section (3) and/or sub-section (3A) of Section 123,  unless the further elements indicated are also present in  that speech.  It is  also necessary  to see  the meaning and purport of the speech and the manner in which it was likely  to be  understood by  the audience  to which the speech was addressed. These words are not to be construed in the abstract, when used in an election speech.      Both sides  referred copiously  to the  meaning of  the word ‘Hindutva’  and ‘Hinduism’  with reference  to  several writings. Shri  Jethmalani referred  to them for the purpose of indicating  the several  meanings of  these words  and to emphasise that the word ‘HIndutva’ relates to Indian culture based on the geographical division known as Hindustan, i.e., India. On  the other  hand, Shri Ashok Desai emphasised that the term ‘Hindutva’ used in election speeches is an emphasis on Hindu religion bearing no relation to the fact that India is also  known as  Hindustan, and  the term  can  relate  to Indian culture.      The Constitution  Bench in  Sastri Yagnapurushadji  and Others vs.  Muldas Bhudardas  Vaishya and  Another, 1966 (3) SCR 242 held thus :           "Who are  Hindus and  what are  the      broad features  of Hindu  religion, that      must be the first part of our enquiry in      dealing  with  the  present  controversy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 34  

    between the  parties. The historical and      etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu"      has given  rise to a controversy amongst      indologists;  but   the  view  generally      accepted by  scholars appears to be that      the word  "Hindu" has  given rise  to  a      controversy amongst indologists; but the      view  generally   accepted  by  scholars      appears to  be that  the word "Hindu" is      derived from  the river Sindhu otherwise      known as  Indus  which  flows  from  the      Punjab. "that  part of  the great  Aryan      race",  says   Monier  Williams,  "which      immigrated from  Central  Asia,  through      the mountain  passes into India, settled      first in  the districts  near the  river      Sindhu  (now   called  the  Indus).  The      Persians pronounced  this word Hindu and      named their  Aryan brethren  Hindus. The      Greeks, who  probably gained their first      ideas  of   India  from   the  Persians,      dropped the  hard aspirate,  and  called      the Hindus "Indoi" ("Hinduism" by monier      Williams, p.1).           The Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and      Ethics,   Vol.    VI,   has    described      "Hinduism" as  the title applied to that      form of  religion which  prevails  among      the  vast   majority  of   the   present      population  of  the  Indian  Empire  (p.      686). As Dr. Radhakrishnan has observed;      "The Hindu  civilization is  so  called,      since its  original founders or earliest      followers occupied the territory drained      by the  Sindhu (the  Indus) river system      corresponding to the North West Frontier      Province  and   the  PUnjab.   This   is      recorded in  the Rig Veda, the oldest of      the Vedas,  the Hindu  scriptures  which      give their  name to  this period  Indian      history. The  people on  the Indian side      of the  SIndhu we re called Hindu by the      Persian and  the later western invaders"      ("The  Hindu   View  of   Life"  by  Dr.      Radhakrishnan,  p.12).   That   is   the      genesis of the word "Hindu".           When  we   think   of   the   Hindu      religion. We  find it  difficult, if not      impossible, to  define Hindu religion or      even  adequately   describe  it.  Unlike      other religions  in the world, the Hindu      religion does not claim any one prophet;      it does not worship any one God; it does      not subscribe  to any one dogma; it does      not  believe   in  any  one  philosophic      concept; it  does not follow any one set      of religious  rites or  performances; in      fact, it  does not appear to satisfy the      narrow  traditional   features  of   any      religion or  creed. It  may  broadly  be      described as  a way  of life and nothing      more.           ....The term  ‘Hindu’, according to      Dr.  Radhakrishnan,   had  originally  a      territorial    and    not    a    credal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 34  

    significance. It  implied residence in a      well-defined     geographical      area.      Aboriginal  tribes,   savage  and  half-      civilized    people,     the    cultured      Dravidians and the Vedic Aryans were all      Hindus as they were the sons of the same      mother. The Hindu thinkers reckoned with      the striking fact that the men and women      dwelling in  India belonged to different      communities, worshipped  different gods,      and  practised  different  rites  (Kurma      Purana) (Ibid p. 12).           Monier Williams  has observed  that      "it must  be borne in mind that Hinduism      is far  more than  a mere form of theism      resting on  Brahmanism. It  presents for      our investigation a complex congeries of      creeds  and   doctrines  which   is  its      gradual accumulation  may be compared to      the  gathering  together  of  the  might      volume  of  the  Ganges,  swollen  by  a      continual influx of tributary rivers and      rivulets,  spreading   itself  over   an      everincreasing  area   of  country   and      finally   resolving   itself   into   an      intricate Delta  of tortuous  steams and      jungly marshes.... The Hindu religion is      a reflection  of the composite character      of the  Hindus, who  are not  one people      but many.  It is  based on  the idea  of      universal receptivity. It has ever aimed      at     accommodating      itself      to      circumstances, and  has carried  on  the      process of  adaptation through more than      three thousand years. It has first borne      with and  then, so  to speak, swallowed,      digested, and assimilated something from      all creeds".  ("Religious Thought & Life      in India" by Monier Williams, p. 57).           We have  already indicated that the      usual tests  which  can  be  applied  in      relation to  any recognised  religion or      religious creed in the world turn out to      be  inadequate   in  dealing   with  the      problem of Hindu religion. Normally, any      recognised religion  or religious  creed      subscribes to  a body of set philosophic      concepts and  theological beliefs.  Does      this test  apply to the Hindu religion ?      In answering  this  question,  we  would      base ourselves  mainly on the exposition      of the  problem by  Dr. Radhakrishnan in      his work  on Indian philosophy. ("Indian      Philosophy" by  Dr. Radhakrishnan,  Vol.      I, pp.  22-23). Unlike  other countries,      India  can   claim  that  philosophy  in      ancient India  was not  an auxiliary  to      any other  science or  art,  but  always      held    a    prominent    position    of      independence. ..... "In all the fleeting      centuries   of    history’,   says   Dr.      Radhakrishnan, "in  all the vicissitudes      through  which   India  has   passed,  a      certain marked  identity is  visible. It      has held  fast to  certain psychological

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 34  

    traits  which   constitute  its  special      heritage,   and   they   will   be   the      characteristic  marks   of  the   Indian      people so long as they are privileged to      have a  separate existence". The history      of Indian  thought  emphatically  brings      out the  fact that  the  development  of      Hindu religion  has always been inspired      by an  endless quest  of  the  mind  for      truth based  on the  consciousness  that      truth has many facets. Truth is one, but      wise men  describe it  differently. (..)      The  Indian   mind   has,   consistently      through the  ages, been  exercised  over      the problem of the nature of godhead the      problem that faces the spirit at the end      of life,  and the  interrelation between      the individual  and the  universal soul.      "If we  can abstract from the variety of      opinion", says  Dr. Radhakrishnan,  "and      observe the  general  spirit  of  Indian      thought, we  shall find  that it  has  a      disposition to interpret life and nature      in the  way of monistic idealism, though      this tendency  is so plastic, living and      manifold that  it takes  many forms  and      expresses  itself   in   even   mutually      hostile teachings". (..)           .....  Naturally   enough,  it  was      realised by Hindu religion from the very      beginning of  its career  that truth was      many-sided and different views contained      different aspects  of truth which no one      could  fully   express.  This  knowledge      inevitably bred  a spirit  of  tolerance      and  willingness   to  under-stand   and      appreciate the opponent’s point of view.      That is how "the several views set forth      in  India   in  regard   to  the   vital      philosophic concepts  are considered  to      be the  branches of  the self-same tree.      The short  cuts  and  blind  alleys  are      somehow reconciled with the main road of      advance to  the  truth."  (..)  When  we      consider this  broad weep  of the  Hindu      philosophic  concepts,   it   would   be      realised that  under  Hindu  philosophy,      there is  no scope  for ex-communicating      any notion or principle as heretical and      rejecting it as such.      xxx                 xxx              xxx           The development  of Hindu  religion      and philosophy  shows that  from time to      time  saints   and  religious  reformers      attempted  to   remove  from  the  Hindu      thought  and   practices   elements   of      corruption and superstition and that led      to the  formation  of  different  sects.      Buddha started Buddhism; Mahavir founded      Jainism; Basava  became the  founder  of      Lingayat   religion,   Dnyaneshwar   and      Tukaram  initiated  the  Varakari  Cult;      Guru nanak  inspired Sikhism;  Dayananda      founded Arya  Samaj, and Chaitanya began      Bhakti cult;  and as  a  result  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 34  

    teachings     of     Ramakrishna     and      Vivekananda,  Hindu   religion  flowered      into its  most  attractive,  progressive      and  dynamic   form.  If  we  study  the      teachings of  these saints and religious      reformers, we  would notice an amount of      divergence in  their  respective  views;      but underneath that divergence, there is      a kind  of  subtle  indescribable  unity      which keeps them within the sweep of the      broad and progressive Hindu religion.      xxx                 xxx              xxx           .... It is somewhat remarkable that      this broad  sweep of  Hindu religion has      been eloquently  described  by  Toynbee.      Says Toynbee:  "When we  pass  from  the      plane of social practice to the plane of      intellectual outlook, Hinduism too comes      out  well   by   comparison   with   the      religions and  ideologies of  the South-      West Asian  group. In  contrast to these      Hinduism has  the same  outlook  as  the      pre-Christian and  pre-Muslim  religions      and philosophies  of the Western half of      the old world. Like them, Hinduism takes      it for  granted that  there is more than      one  valid  approach  to  truth  and  to      salvation  and   that  these   different      approaches are  not only compatible with      each other, but are complementary" ("The      present-Day   Experiment    in   Western      Civilisation" by Toynbee, pp. 48-49).           The Constitution-makers  were fully      conscious    of     this    broad    and      comprehensive   character    of    Hindu      religion; and so, while guaranteeing the      fundamental   right    to   freedom   of      religion, Explanation  II to Art. 25 has      made it  clear that in sub-clause (b) of      clause  (2),  the  reference  to  Hindus      shall  be   construed  as   including  a      reference  to   persons  professing  the      Sikh, Jaina  or Buddhist  religion,  and      the   reference   to   Hindu   religious      institutions    shall    be    construed      accordingly."                           (emphasis supplied)                          (from pages 259-266)      In a  later Constitution  Bench decision  in Commr.  of Wealth Tax,  Madras &  Ors. vs. Late R. Sridharan by L. Rs., (1976) Supp.  SCR 478, the meaning of the term ‘Hinduism’ as commonly understood is stated thus;-           "....It  is   a  matter  of  common      knowledge, that Hinduism embraces within      self so  many diverse  forms of beliefs,      faiths, practices and worship that it is      difficult to  define  the  term  ‘Hindu’      with precision.           The  historical   and  etymological      genesis of  the word  "Hindu"  has  been      succinctly explained  by Gajendragadkar,      C.J. in  Shastri Yagnapurushdasji & Ors.      v.  Muldas  Bhundardas  Vaishya  &  Anr.      (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1119).           In Unabridged  Edition of Webster’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 34  

    Third New  International  Dictionary  of      the   English    language,   the    term      ‘Hinduism’ has  been defined  as meaning      "a complex  body of social, cultural and      religious beliefs  and practices evolved      in and  largely confined  to the  Indian      subcontinent  and   marked  by  a  caste      system, an  outlook tending  to view all      forms and  theories as  aspects  of  one      eternal being  and truth,  a moksha, and      the practice  of the  way of  works, the      way of knowledge, or the way of devotion      as the  means of  release from the bound      of rebirths; the way of life and form of      thought of a Hindu".           In Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (15th      Edition), the  term ‘Hinduism’  has been      defined as  meaning "the civilization of      Hindus (originally,  the inhabitants  of      the  land   of  the   Indus  River).  It      properly denotes the Indian civilization      of approximately  the last  2,000 years,      which gradually evolved from Vedism, the      religion of  the  ancient  Indo-European      who  settled   in  India   in  the  last      centuries  of  the  2nd  millennium  BC.      Because it integrates a large variety of      heterogeneous     elements,     Hinduism      constitutes a  very complex  but largely      continuous whole,  and since  it  covers      the whole  of life,  it  has  religious,      social, economic, literary, and artistic      aspects. As  a religion,  Hinduism is an      utterly    diverse    conglomerate    of      doctrines, cults, and way of life.... In      principle,  Hinduism   incorporates  all      forms  of  belief  and  worship  without      necessitating    the     selection    or      elimination  of   any.  The   Hindu   is      inclined to  revere the  divine in every      manifestation, whatever  it may  be, and      is doctrinally  tolerant, leaving others      tolerant,  leaving  others  -  including      both Hindus  and non-Hindus  -  whatever      creed and  worship practices  suit  them      best. A  Hindu may  embrace a  non-Hindu      religion without  ceasing to be a Hindu,      and since the Hindu is disposed to think      synthetically and  to regard other forms      of worship,  strange gods, and divergent      doctrines  as   inadequate  rather  than      wrong  or  objectionable,  he  tends  to      believe that  the highest  divine powers      complement each other for the well-being      of the  world and mankind. Few religious      ideas  are   considered  to  be  finally      irreconcilable.  The  core  of  religion      does not even depend on the existence or      non-existence of God or on whether there      is one  god  or  many.  Since  religious      truth is  said to  transcend all  verbal      definition,  it   is  not  conceived  in      dogmatic terms. Hinduism is. then both a      civilization  and   a  conglomerate   of      religions, with  neither a  beginning, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 34  

    founder,  nor   a   central   authority,      hierarchy,   or    organization.   Every      attempt  at  a  specific  definition  of      Hinduism has  proved  unsatisfactory  in      one way  or another, the more so because      the finest  Indian scholars of Hinduism,      including   Hindus    themselves,   have      emphasized  different   aspects  of  the      whole".           In    his    celebrated    treatise      "Gitarahasaya", B.G. Tilak has given the      following broad description of the Hindu      religion :-           "Acceptance  of   the  Vedas   with      reverence; recognition  of the fact that      the  means   or  ways  of  salvation  or      diverse; and  realisation of  the  truth      that the number of gods to be worshipped      is   large,    that   indeed    is   the      distinguishing    feature    of    Hindu      religion".           In Bhagwan  Koer  v.  J.C.  Bose  &      Ors., (1904 ILR 31 Cal. 11), it was held      that  Hindu   religion  is   marvelously      catholic and  elastic. Its  theology  is      marked by  eclecticism and tolerance and      almost  unlimited   freedom  of  private      worship. .....           This being  the scope and nature of      the religion,  it is not strange that it      holds within  its fold  men of divergent      views and  traditions  which  have  very      little in common except a vague faith in      what may  be called  the fundamentals of      the Hindu religion."                           (emphasis supplied)                            (at pages 481-482)      These Constitution  Bench decisions,  after a  detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the  terms ‘Hindu’,  ‘Hindutva’ and  ‘Hinduism’;  and  no meaning in  the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion  alone, excluding  the content of Indian culture and heritage.  It is also indicated that the term ‘Hindutva’ is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. It  is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ per se, in the abstract,  can be  assumed to  mean and  be equated with narrow  fundamentalist   Hindu  religious   bigotry,  or  be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.      Bharucha, J.  in Dr.  M. Ismail  Faruqui and  Ors. etc. etc. Vs.  Union of  India &  Ors. etc.,  1994 (6)  SCC  360, (Ayodhya case),  in the  separate opinion  for  himself  and Ahmadi, J. (as he then was), observed as under :      "....Hinduism is a tolerant faith. It is      that tolerance  that has  enabled Islam,      Christianity,  Zoroastrianism,  Judaism,      Buddhism, Jainism  an  Sikhism  to  find      shelter and support upon this land...."                               ( at page 442 )      Ordinarily, Hindutva  is understood as a way of life or a state  of mind  and it  is not  to  be  equated  with,  or understood as  religious Hindu  fundamentalism.  In  "Indian Muslims -  The Need  For  A  Positive  Outlook"  by  Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, (1994), it is said :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 34  

    "The strategy  worked out  to solve  the      minorities   problem    was,    although      differently worded,  that of Hindutva or      Indianisation.  This  strategy,  briefly      stated, aims  at  developing  a  uniform      culture by  obliterating the differences      between all  of the  cultures coexisting      in the  country. This was felt to be the      way to  communal  harmony  and  national      unity. It  was thought  that this  would      put an  end once  and  for  all  to  the      minorities problem."                                ( at page 19 ) The above opinion indicates that the word ‘Hindutva’ is used and  understood  as  a  synonym  of  ‘Indianisation’,  i.e., development  of   uniform  culture   by   obliterating   the differences between  all the  cultures  co-existing  in  the country.      In Kultar  Singh vs.  Mukhtiar Singh, 1964 (7) SCR 790, the Constitution  Bench construed the meaning of sub-section (3) of  Section 123  prior to  its amendment.  The  question there was  whether a poster contained an appeal to voters to vote for  the candidate  on the  ground of his religion; and the  meaning   of  the   word  ‘Panth’  in  the  poster  was significant for the purpose. It was held as under :-           "It is true that a corrupt practice      under s.  123(3) can  be committed  by a      candidate by  appealing to the voters to      vote  for  him  on  the  ground  of  his      religion even though his rival candidate      may belong to the same religion. If, for      instance,  a   Sikh  candidate  were  to      appeal to  the voters  to vote  for him,      because he  was a  Sikh in name, was not      true to  the religious tenets of Sikhism      or was  a heretic  and as  such, outside      the pale  of  the  Sikh  religion,  that      would amount to a corrupt practice under      s. 123(3),  and so, we cannot uphold the      contention    that    s.    123(3)    is      inapplicable because  both the appellant      and the respondent are Sikhs. ....           The corrupt  practice as prescribed      by s.  123(3) undoubtedly  constitutes a      very  healthy   and  salutary  provision      which is  intended to serve the cause of      secular democracy  in this  country.  In      order that the democratic process should      thrive and  succeed,  it  is  of  utmost      importance   that   our   elections   to      Parliament and the different legislative      bodies must  be free  from the unhealthy      influence of  appeals to religion, race,      caste, community,  or language. If these      considerations are  allowed any  sway in      election campaigns,  they would  vitiate      the  secular  atmosphere  of  democratic      life, and  so, s. 123(3) wisely provides      a check  on this undesirable development      by providing  that an  appeal to  any of      these factors made in furtherance of the      candidature of  any candidate as therein      prescribed would  constitute  a  corrupt      practice and  would render  the election      of the said candidate void.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 34  

         In considering  the question  as to      whether the distribution of the impugned      poster  by   the  appellant  constitutes      corrupt practice  under s. 123(3), there      is one  point which  has to  be borne in      mind. The  appellant had been adopted as      its candidate  by the  Akali Dal  Party.      This Party  is recognised as a political      party   by   the   Election   Commission      notwithstanding the fact that all of its      members are only Sikhs. It is well-known      that there  are several  parties in this      country  which  subscribe  to  different      political and  economic ideologies,  but      the  membership   of  them   is   either      confined to,  or predominantly  held by,      members  of  particular  communities  or      religions.  So  long  as  law  does  not      prohibit the  formation of  such parties      and in  fact  recognises  them  for  the      purpose of  election  and  parliamentary      life, it  would be necessary to remember      that an  appeal made  by  candidates  of      such   parties   for   votes   may,   if      successful, lead  to their  election and      in an  indirect way,  may conceivably be      influenced    by    considerations    of      religion,  race,   caste,  community  or      language. This  infirmity cannot perhaps      be  avoided   so  long  as  parties  are      allowed to  function and are recognised,      though   their    composition   may   be      predominantly  based  on  membership  of      particular communities or religion. That      is why  we  think,  in  considering  the      question  as  to  whether  a  particular      appeal made  by a candidate falls within      the mischief of s. 123(3), courts should      not be  astute to  read into  the  words      used in  the appeal  anything more  than      can be  attributed to  them on  its fair      and reasonable construction.           That takes  us to  the question  of      construing  the   impugned  poster.  The      principles which  have to  be applied in      construing such  a  document  are  well-      settled. The  document must be read as a      whole  and   its  purport   and   effect      determined  in  a  fair,  objective  and      reasonable  manner.   In  reading   such      documents, it  would be  unrealistic  to      ignore  the   fact  that  when  election      meetings are  held and  appeals are made      by  candidates   of  opposing  political      parties,  the   atmosphere  is   usually      surcharged with  partisan  feelings  and      emotions and  the use  of hyperboles  or      exaggerated language, or the adoption of      metaphors,  and   the  extravagance   of      expression in attacking one another, are      all a part of the game, and so, when the      question about  the effect  of  speeches      delivered or  pamphlets  distributed  at      election meetings  is argued in the cold      atmosphere of  a judicial  chamber, some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 34  

    allowance must  be made and the impugned      speeches or  pamphlets must be construed      in that  light. In doing so, however, it      would  be  unreasonable  to  ignore  the      question as  to what  the effect  of the      said speech  or pamphlet would be on the      mind of  the ordinary  voter who attends      such meetings and reads the pamphlets or      hears the  speeches. It  is in the light      of  these   well-established  principles      that we  must now  turn to  the impugned      pamphlet."                           (emphasis supplied)                            (at pages 793-795)      The test  applied in  the decision  was to construe the meaning of  the word  ‘Panth’ not in the abstract but in the context of its use. The conclusion reached was that the word ‘Panth’ used  in the  poster did not mean Sikh religion and, therefore, the  appeal to the voters was not to vote for the candidate because  of his  religion. Referring to an earlier decision in Jagdev Singh Sidhanti vs Pratap Singh Daulta and Ors., 1964 (6) SCR 750, it was reiterated as under :-           "..... Political  issues which form      the subject-matter  of controversies  at      election  meetings  may  indirectly  and      incidentally introduce considerations of      language or  religion, but  in  deciding      the  question   as  to  whether  corrupt      practice has  been  committed  under  s.      123(3), care  must be  taken to consider      the impugned  speech or appeal carefully      and always  in the light of the relevant      political controversy. ....."                                 (at page 799)      Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench  decisions of  this Court  that the words ‘Hinduism’  or   ‘Hindutva’  are   not  necessarily   to  be understood and  construed narrowly,  confined  only  to  the strict Hindu  religious practices  unrelated to  the culture and ethos  of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the  Indian  people.  Unless  the  context  of  a  speech indicates a  contrary meaning  or use, in the abstract these terms are  indicative more  of a  way of  life of the Indian people and  are not  confined  merely  to  describe  persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.      Considering the  terms ‘Hinduism’  or ‘Hindutva’ per se as depicting  hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation  and perception of the true meaning of these expressions  emerging from  the detailed discussion in earlier  authorities   of  this   Court.  Misuse   of  these expressions to  promote communalism  cannot alter  the  true meaning of  these terms.  the mischief  resulting  from  the misuse of  the terms  by anyone  in his  speech  has  to  be checked and  not its  permissible use.  It  is  indeed  very unfortunate,  if  in  spite  of  the  liberal  and  tolerant features of  ‘Hinduism’ recognised  in  judicial  decisions, these terms  are misused  by anyone  during the elections to gain any  unfair political  advantage. Fundamentalism of any colour or  kind must be curbed with a heavy hand to preserve and promote  the secular  creed of the nation. Any misuse of these terms must, therefore, be dealt with strictly.      It is,  therefore, a  fallacy and  an error  of law  to proceed on  the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in  a speech  makes it automatically a speech based

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 34  

on the  Hindu religion  as opposed to the other religions or that the use of words ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ per se depict an attitude  hostile to  all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion. It is the kind of use made of these words  and the  meaning sought  to be  conveyed in the speech with  has to  be seen  and unless such a construction leads to the conclusion that these words were used to appeal for votes  for a  Hindu candidate on the ground that he is a Hindu or  not to  vote for  a candidate  because he is not a Hindu, the mere fact that these words are used in the speech would not bring it within the prohibition of sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123. It may well be, that these words are used in  a speech  to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of  life of  the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or  to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or  intolerant.  The  parliamentary  debates, including the clarifications made by the Law Minister quoted earlier,  also   bring  out   this  difference  between  the prohibited and permissible speech in this context. Whether a particular speech  in which  reference is  made to  Hindutva and/or Hinduism  falls within  the  prohibition  under  sub- section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is, therefore, a question of fact in each case.      This is  the correct  premise in  our view on which all such matters  are to  be examined.  The fallacy  is  in  the assumption that  a speech  in which  reference  is  made  to Hindutva or Hinduism must be a speech on the ground of Hindu religion so  that if  the candidate  for whom  the speech is made happens  to be a Hindu, it must necessarily amount to a corrupt practice  under sub-section  (3) and/or  sub-section (3A)of Section  123 of  the R.P. Act. As indicated, there is no such  presumption permissible  in  law  contrary  to  the several Constitution Bench decisions referred herein. Non-compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act      The contention  that the  notice given to Bal Thackeray under Section  99 of the R.P. Act was not in conformity with that provision  and that  there  is  non-compliance  of  the requirements of  Section 99,  has no  merit. the  notice was given after  the entire  evidence had  been recorded and the learned trial  Judge formed the prima facie opinion that the corrupt practices  alleged to have been committed under sub- sections (3)  and (3A)  of Section 123 appeared to have been proved and  Bal Thackeray  was likely to be named along with the  returned  candidate  to  be  guilty  of  those  corrupt practices. The  notice given  was accompanied  by copies  of pleadings and  the entire  evidence adduced at the trial for proving those  corrupt practices.  The notice clearly stated that the  notice had  the opportunity  to cross-examine such witnesses as  had  already  been  examined  and  of  calling evidence in  his defence  and of  being  heard.  The  notice raised objection  to the  notice alleging that it was vague, which was  rejected  by  the  High  Court.  That  order  was challenged by  a special  leave petition in this Court which was dismissed granting liberty to the notice to apply in the High Court  for the  precise  particulars  claimed  by  him. Ultimately certain portions from the material on record were indicated by  the petitioner on such a direction being given by the High Court. In view of the direction of this Court in the  special   leave  petition,  it  would  have  been  more appropriate for  the High  Court  to  indicate  the  precise portions. However,  there is no prejudice caused inasmuch as the portions  were indicated  by the  election petitioner on the  High   Court’s  direction.   The  election   petitioner Prabhakar Kashinath  Kunte  (PW-1)  was  called  for  cross- examination on  behalf of  the notice.  The notice was given

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 34  

full opportunity  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses  already examined and  to adduce evidence in his defence and to argue his case in the High Court. The notice Bal Thackeray did not choose to enter the witness box and, therefore, the material present has  to be examined without any denial by the notice as a witness in the case.      There is  no dispute  that no  material which  was  not given to  the notice  Bal Thackeray was used against him. We have already  indicated that  the finding  of proof  of  the corrupt practices  alleged in the election petition is based on the  three speeches of Bal Thackeray which are not denied either by  Dr. Ramesh  Prabhoo or  by Bal Thackeray. Copy of the text  of those speeches is also undisputed. All this was furnished to  the notice  Bal Thackeray.  It is difficult to visualise what  prejudice could  be caused  to the notice on these facts  and how  there could  be any  non-compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act in this situation.      In order to examine the contention of non-compliance of Section 99,  it is  necessary to examine the requirements of that provision. Section 99 reads as under:-           "99. Other orders to be made by the      High Court.  - (1) At the time of making      an order under section 98 the High Court      shall also make an order -           (a) where any charge is made in the      petition of  any corrupt practice having      been   committed    at   the   election,      recording -           (i) a  finding whether  any corrupt      practice has  or has  not been proved to      have been committed at the election, and      the nature of that corrupt practice; and           (ii)the names  of all  persons,  if      any, who  have been  proved at the trial      to have  been  quality  of  any  corrupt      practice  and   the   nature   of   that      practice; and           (b)  fixing  the  total  amount  of      costs payable and specifying the persons      by and to whom costs shall be paid:           Provided that a person who is not a      party to the petition shall not be named      in the  order under  sub-clause (ii)  of      clause (a) unless -           (a) he  has been  given  notice  to      appear before the High Court and to show      cause why he should not be so named; and           (b) if  he appears  in pursuance of      the  notice,   he  has   been  given  an      opportunity   of   cross-examining   any      witness who has already been examined by      the High  Court and  has given  evidence      against him,  of calling evidence in his      defence and of being heard.           (2) In  this section and in section      100, the expression "agent" has the same      meaning as in section 123."      Sub-section (1)  requires that at the time of making an order under  Section 98,  the High  Court shall also make an order recording  the names  of all persons, if any, who have been proved at the trial to have been quality of any corrupt practice and  the nature  of that  practice. In other words, while deciding  the election  petition at  the conclusion of the trial  and making an order under Section 98 disposing of the election  petition in one of the ways specified therein,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 34  

the High  Court is  required to  record  the  names  of  all persons quality  of any  corrupt  practice  which  has  been proved  at  the  trial.  Proviso  to  sub-section  (1)  then prescribes that  a person who is not a party to the petition shall not  be so named unless the condition specified in the proviso is fulfilled. The requirement of the proviso is only in respect  of a  person who  is not a party to the petition and is  to be  named so that he too has the same opportunity which  was  available  to  a  party  to  the  petition.  The requirement specified  is of  a notice  to appear  and  show cause why  he should  not be  named and  if  he  appears  in pursuance of  the notice,  he has to be given an opportunity of cross-examining any witness who has already been examined by the  High Court  and has  given evidence  against him and also the  opportunity of calling evidence in his defence and of being  heard. In  short, the opportunity which a party to the  petition  had  at  the  trial  to  defend  against  the allegation of  corrupt practice  is to  be given  by such  a notice to  that person  of defending  himself if  he was not already a  party to the petition. In other words, the notice has to  be equated  with a  party to  the petition  for this purpose and  sis to  be given  the same opportunity which he would get if he was made a party to the petition.      This is  the pragmatic  test to be applied for deciding the question  of compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act if the notice  had the opportunity which he would have got as a party to  the petition,  then there  can be  no case of non- compliance of  Section 99.  The opportunity  required to  be given by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 99 is the same and  not more  than that  available to  a party  to the petition to  defend himself  against the  charge of  corrupt practice. Applying  the above  test, there  can be  no doubt that there is no non-compliance of Section 99 in the present case. The  notice Bal  Thackeray had  the  same  opportunity which the returned candidate Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo got as a  respondent to  the petition.  The notice was given the opportunity to  cross-examine any  witness who  had  already been examined  by the  High Court and the witnesses who were considered to  have given  evidence against  him, were  also enumerated in the notice; and he was given an opportunity to call evidence in his defence and to be heard.      In this  situation, the  grievance made  that  specific portions of  the material  which formed  the record  at  the trial was  not precisely  indicated to  the  notice  has  no merit. It  was clear  from the  pleading that the allegation against the notice was in respect of the three speeches made by him,  the particulars of which were given and the text of those speeches also was available to the notice which he did not even  deny. On these facts, there is no ground to allege non-compliance  of   Section  99   of  the  R.P.  Act.  This contention  on  behalf  of  the  notice  Bal  Thackeray  is, therefore, rejected  and the  objection raised in the appeal of Bal Thackeray of non-compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act has no merit.      We would now proceed to examine the facts of this case.      Speeches      It is  in the  light of  the above  discussion and  the meaning of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 that the effect of the alleged offending speeches has to be examined. The three  speeches were  made on  29.11.1987, 9.12.1987 and 19.12.1987 and  10.12.1987 amount to corrupt practices under sub-sections (3)  and (3A)  of Section 123, while the speech of 9.12.1987  is a  corrupt practice  only under sub-section (3) thereof.  The returned  candidate  Dr.  Ramesh  Yeshwant Prabhoo was present in all the three meetings in which these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 34  

speeches were  given by  Bal Thackeray.  The consent  of Dr. Prabhoo for  these speeches  is  implied  from  his  conduct including his personal presence in all the three meetings.      Certain extracts  from  the  alleged  speeches  of  Bal Thackeray, translated  in English,  are expressly pleaded in the election petition, as under:-      From Speech of 29.11.1987      "We are  fighting this  election for the      protection of Hinduism. Therefore, we do      not care  for the  votes of the Muslims.      This country  belongs to Hindus and will      remain so."      From Speech of 9.12.1987      "Hinduism will  triumph in this election      and we must become hon’ble recipients of      this victory  to ward  off the danger on      Hinduism, elect  Ramesh Prabhoo  to join      with  Chhagan  Bhujbal  who  is  already      there.  You   will  find  Hindu  temples      underneath if  all the  mosques are  dug      out.  Anybody  who  stands  against  the      Hindus should  be showed  or  worshipped      with shoes.  A candidate by name Prabhoo      should be  led to victory in the name of      religion."      From Speech of 10.12.1987      "We  have  gone  with  the  ideology  of      Hinduism. Shiv  Sena will implement this      ideology. Though this country belongs to      Hindus, Ram  and Krishna  are  insulted.      (They) valued the Muslim votes more than      your votes:  we do  not want  the Muslim      votes.  A   snake  like  Shahabuddin  is      sitting in  the Janata  Party, man  like      Nihal Ahmed  is also in Janata Party. So      the residents  of Vile Parle should bury      this party (Janata Party)." <SLE>      It has  been pleaded  in the election petition that the above utterances  in the three meetings are examples to show that the appeal to voters emphasised that Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo was the  only person who could represent the Hindu community and, therefore, the voters should vote for Ramesh Prabhoo in the name  of religion.  The full  text of  the speeches were adduced  in  evidence  and  the  contents  thereof  are  not disputed. It may be mentioned that a notice under Section 99 of the R.P. Act was issued to Bal Thackeray who merely filed an affidavit  but did  not enter  the witness  box. The true import and  impact of  these speeches  has, therefore, to be adjudged  in   the  light  of  the  evidence  including  the statement of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo without the version in evidence of Bal Thackeray.      The case  was argued  even  before  us  on  a  demurrer treating the  contents of  the speeches as reproduced in the full text  in  evidence,  of  which  the  specific  portions pleaded in  the election petition are extracts. The question is: Whether these speeches amount to corrupt practices under sub-section (3)  and/or (3A)  of Section  123 as held by the High Court ?      We may  now  quote  certain  extracts  from  the  three speeches of  Bal Thackeray on which reliance has been placed in particular by Shri Ashok Desai to support the judgment of the  High  Court  that  they  constitute  the  said  corrupt practices. These are :      First speech on 29.11.1987

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 34  

    "All  my  Hindu  brothers,  sisters  and      mothers gathered  here. ....  Today  Dr.      Prabhu has been put up as candidate from      you Parle.  ... But  here one  cannot do      anything at  anytime about  the snake in      the form  of Khalistan  and Muslim. ....      The entire  country has  been ruined and      therefore we  took the stand of Hindutva      and by  taking the  said stand  we  will      step in  the legislative  Assembly. ....      Unless we step forward strongly it would      be difficult  for  us  to  live  because      there would  be war  of  religion.  ....      Muslims will  come, What  will you Hindu      (people) do.  Are  you  going  to  throw      ‘Bhasma’ (i.e.  ashes) on  them. ...  We      won’t mind  if do not get a votes from a      single Muslim  and we  are  not  at  all      desirous to  win an  election with  such      votes. ....  therefore, there  is a dire      need  of   the  voice  of  Hindutva  and      therefore  please   send  Shiv-Sena   to      Legislative  Assembly.   ....  Who   are      (these) Muslims.  Who are these ‘lande’.      Once Vasant  Dada had  called me when he      was a  Chief Minister.  He told  me that      rest is  O.K. But  asked me  as to why I      was  calling   them  Lande.  But  is  it      correct if  they call  us ‘Kafer’  (i.e.      traitor) then we will certainly call the      ‘Lande’. ....  They should  bear in mind      that this country is of Hindus, the same      shall remain  of Hindus.  .... if  Shiv-      sena comes  to power  and if the morchas      come ----  first of  all (we) shall make      them come.  Everybody will  have to take      ‘diksha’  (i.e.   initiation)  of  Hindu      religion. ...."      Second speech of 9.12.1987      ".... The victory will not be mine or of      Dr.  Prabhu  or  of  Shiv-sena  but  the      victory will  be that  of Hinduism.  You      will be  instrumental in victory and you      should become  instrument for  the same.      At last you have the right to get rid of      the difficulties  faced  by  you  caste,      creed, gods  deities and Hindu religion.      .... Therefore, I want to say that today      we  are   standing  for  Hinduism.  ....      Whatever  Masjids   are  there,  if  one      starts digging  the same,  one will find      Hindu temples  under the  same. ....  If      any body  stands against  Hindustan  you      should show  courage by performing pooja      (i.e. worship)  with shoes.  .... And  a      person by  name Prabhu who is contesting      the election  in the  name  of  religion      serve ahead (in the assembly). A ‘Jawan’      - like  Prabhu should  go there  (in the      assembly). ...."      Third speech of 10.12.1987      ".... It  will do,  if we  do not  get a      vote from  any Muslim.  If anybody  from      them is  present at this place he should      think for  himself. I  am not in need of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 34  

    their votes.  But I  want you vote. ....      You must  sent only Dr. Ramesh Prabhu of      Shiv-sena,  otherwise   Hindus  will  be      finished. It will not take much take for      Hindustan to  be green (i.e. Pakistan?).      ....      As earlier  stated, the three speeches of Bal Thackeray from which the above extracts have been quoted are admitted. Similarly the  interview of  Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo and its text  published in  Janmabhoomi Prawasi is admitted. Dr. Prabhoo was the Mayor of Bombay. Dr. Prabhoo (RW-1) admitted his presence  in the  meetings held on 29.11.1987, 9.12.1987 and 10.12.1987 in which the above speeches were given by Bal Thackeray.  He  admitted  speaking  himself  also  in  these meetings. He  has said  nothing in  his statement to suggest that he  did not  consent to the contents of the speeches of Bal Thackeray.  In his deposition, he has expressly admitted that the  speeches of  Bal Thackeray  were according  to his election campaign.  the element  of the  candidate’s consent for the  appeal to  the voters  made by bal Thackeray in his speeches  is,   therefore,  adequately   proved.  About  his interview published  in the  Janmabhoomi Prawasi,  issue  of 9.12.1987, he said that the report is substantially correct, even though  the  first  paragraph  of  that  news  item  is incorrect. Omitting  the first  paragraph of  the news  item which he  denied, certain portions, translated into English, from the remaining news item publishing the interview are as under :-           ".... Dr. Prabhu told me that there      was a Hindu wave in Parle. The battle is      between Hindus  and Muslims  i.e. to say      between    nationalist     and     anti-      nationalist. ....      xxx              xxx                 xxx      Supremely confident about his victory in      the Vile  Parle bye-election, Dr. Prabhu      discounted  any   possibility   of   his      defeats but  he added  that if he loses,      it will  mean that  Hinduism  has  lost,      ...."      The appeal  made to  the voters by Bal Thackeray in his aforesaid speech  was a  clear appeal to the Hindu voters to vote for Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo because he is a Hindu. The clear import of  the above  extracts in each of the three speeches is to  this effect.  The first  speech also makes derogatory reference to  Muslims by  calling them ‘snake’ and referring to  them   as  ‘lande’   (derogatory  term  used  for  those practising circumcision).  The language used in the context, amounted to  an attempt  to promote  feelings of  enmity  or hatred between  that Hindus and the Muslims on the ground of religion. The  first speech, therefore, also constitutes and corrupt practice under sub-section (3A).      The High  Court has held the second speech to fall only under sub-section  (3) and  not sub-section  (3A),  but  the third speech  has been  held to  fall both under sub-section (3) and  (3A). We have already held the third speech also to constitute the  corrupt practice  under sub-section (3). the correctness of  the English  translation of  a part  of  the third speech  was found  to be defective at the hearing and, therefore, an  agreed fresh translation thereof was taken on record. Reading  the speech in the light of the fresh agreed translation of  the defective portion, it appears to us that the High  Court’s finding that the third speech amounts also to the  corrupt practice  under sub-section  (3A) cannot  be affirmed, even though this variation is of no consequence to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 34  

the ultimate result.      Our conclusion  is that  all the  three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount  to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub- section (3A)  of Section  123 of  the R.P.  Act.  Since  the appeal made  to the voters in these speeches was to vote for Dr. Ramesh  Prabhoo on the ground of his religion as a Hindu and the  appeal was  made with  the consent of the candidate Dr.  Ramesh   Prabhoo,  he   is  quality  of  these  corrupt practices. For the same reason, Bal Thackeray also is guilty of these  corrupt practices  and, therefore,  liable  to  be named in accordance with Section 99 of the R.P. Act of which due compliance has been made in the present case.      We cannot  help recording  our distress at this kind of speeches given  by a  top leader  of a  political party. The lack of  restraint in  the language  used and the derogatory terms used  therein to  refer to  a group  of people  in  an election speech in indeed to be condemned. The likely impact of such  language used  by a political leader is greater. it is, therefore,  a greater  need for  the leaders  to be more circumspect and  careful in the kind of language they use in the election  campaign.  This  is  essential  not  only  for maintaining decency  and propriety  in the election campaign but also  for  the  preservation  of  the  proper  and  time honoured values  forming part  of our  cultural heritage and for a  free and  fair  poll  in  a  secular  democracy.  The offending  speeches   in  the  present  case  discarded  the cherished values of our rich cultural heritage and tended to erode the secular polity. We say this, with the fervent hope that our  observation has  some  chastening  effect  in  the future election campaigns.      For the  aforesaid reasons, both the appeals must fail. We may  observe that  considerable irrelevant  material  was brought on  record during  the trial at the instance of both the parties which, apart from needlessly enlarging the scope of the  trial, has led to needless extra expense and wastage of time  even in  the hearing  of these  appeals.  In  these circumstances, it  is appropriate  to direct  the parties to bear their  own costs  in this  Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.