All eyes on Supreme Court for ‘Hindutva’ hearing

Ahead of the 2017 assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, the Supreme Court will revisit the December 1995 “Hindutva” judgment that looked into the practice of seeking votes on religious grounds.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur will on Tuesday examine whether an appeal seeking votes in the name of religion will attract Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, which bans such election campaigns.

Former Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma, heading a three-judge Bench of the apex court, had overturned the Bombay high court verdict setting aside the election of Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi in Maharashtra.

Soon after the 1992-93 Mumbai communal riots, Mr Joshi had asked voters to make Maharashtra India’s first Hindu state.

“In our opinion, a mere statement that the first Hindu State will be established in Maharashtra is by itself not an appeal for votes on the grounds of his religion but the expression, at best, of such a hope,” Justice Verma had said.

“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... the Representation of the People Act,” he had said.

“It may well be that these words are used in the speech to promote secularism and 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.”

Subsequently, a five-judge Constitution Bench also held that a candidate would not be guilty of corrupt practice if the person appealed for votes on religious grounds as long as it was not his/her religion.

In August 2002, the matter was referred to a seven-judge Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the interpretation of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which defines corrupt practices. This time, the seven judges will take a call on whether the previous judgments of the three- and five-judge benches could be upheld or overturned.