http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MOHD. ASLAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1611            JT 1996 (5)   566  1996 SCALE  (3)65

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The prayer  in this  writ petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution  of India  is for  reconsideration  of  the judgment in Manohar Joshi vs.Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Another (1996) 1 SCC 169. The petitioner’s contention, in substance, is that the judgment is incorrect.      It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  Article  32  of  the Constitution is not available to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim its reconsideration. This has been clearly  reiterated in  the recent  decision in  Khoday Distilleries Limited  & Anr.  vs. The  Registrar    General, Supreme Court  of India,  1995  (6)  Scale  74  wherein  the decision in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak Anr. 1988 (Suppl. 1) SCR 1,  has been  explained. This  alone  is  sufficient  to dismiss the writ petition.      However, in  view of certain apprehensions expressed by the petitioner,  we deem  it proper  to  make  some  further observations now,  which we  had considered  unnecessary  to incorporate in the judgment in Manohar Joshi. We may observe that the decision of this Court in S.R.Bommai and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 3 SCC 1, did not relate to the construction  of, and determination of the scope of sub- sections (3)  and (3A)  of Section 123 of the Representation of the  People Act,  1951 and,  therefore,  nothing  in  the decision in  S.R. Bommai is of assistance for construing the meaning and  scope of  sub-sections (3)  and (34)-of Section 123 of  the Representation  of the  People Act. Reference to the decision  in S.R.  Bommai is,  therefore, inapposite  in this context.      We may also add that the challenge in the writ petition to the correctness of the decision in Manohar Joshi is based on a  misreading of  that decision.  In  the  judgment,  the decision  on  the  question  of  law  is  based  on  earlier Constitution Bench  decisions of  this Court by which we are

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

bound; and  the observation  therein which  is challenged as incorrect in  this writ  Petitions is  not the  basis of the decision but  an opinion  expressed on  an assumption if the making of  the alleged  statement of the hope of Maharashtra becoming a  Hindu State, in the speech is held to be proved, without recording  a finding  that it  was so  proved.  This allegation was  based on  a police  report and Manohar Joshi did not  admit the making of such a statement in his speech. Moreover,  strong   disapproval  was  expressed  of  such  a statement, if actually made. This is clear particularly from paras 62  to 67 of the decision in Manohar Joshi reported in 1996 (1)  SCC 169. Specific reference has been made for this purpose in paras 64 to 67 (SCC) to the decision in Jamaat-E- Islami Hind  vs. Union  of  India,  1995  (1)  SCC  428,  to indicate the  standard  of  proof  required  for  proving  a corrupt practice  which had  not been  satisfied in  Manohar Joshi in  view of the absence of legal evidence to prove the corrupt practice alleged in the case.      A careful  and dispassionate  reading of  the  decision would show that eh apprehensions and misgivings expressed in the writ  petition, are  imaginary and baseless. There is no occasion to read in the judgment in Manohar Joshi, something which is  not said  or to  say that  it conflicts  with  the concept of  secularism in  S.R. Bommai  where this  question relating to  the meaning  of sub-sections  (3) and  (3A)  of Section 123  of the Representation of the People Act neither arose, nor  was decided.  The application of the decision in Manohar Joshi  in cases like Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs. Shri Prabhakar  Kashinath Kunte  & Others, 1996 (1) SCC 130, Shri Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik vs. Smt. Saroj Sandesh Baik (Bhosale), 1996  (1) SCC  384, and  Mohan vs.  Bhairon Singh Shekhawat,  1996  (1)  Scale  SP3,  is  another  pointer  to indicate that  there is  nothing in  the judgment in Manohar Joshi to  give rise  to any  such apprehension  that it  can enable misuse  of religion for making appeal for votes in an election.      We  may  add  that  the  deficiency,  if  any,  in  the statutory  prohibition  enacting  the  corrupt  practice  in Section 123  of the Representation of the People Act, has to be cured  by legislation and that deficiency cannot be cured by reading  into a  penal provision  something which  is not enacted therein.  The proposal  was  made  at  one  time  to perform the  legislative exercise of enacting a provision to prevent any  possible misuse  of religion  during elections, but it  was, unfortunately,  abandoned. We  do hope  that at least now  there would remain no misapprehension in the mind of anyone.      The writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.