Timely judgment to firm up secular ethos

A constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur passed a landmark judgment on Monday and ruled that seeking votes in elections in the name of religion, caste, race or language would constitute a corrupt practice.

The significance of the judgment, which came a day before the superannuation of Mr Thakur, cannot be lost sight of. The constitution bench was revisiting earlier judgments in respect of elections and the misuse of religion (and other social factors, invoking which can be divisive), including one of 1995, in which the then CJI, Justice J.S. Verma had equated “Hindutva” with “Hinduism” and called it a “way of life”, implying that reference to it cannot sully an election.

The Monday judgment was on petitions challenging the 1995 position. In that sense, it acquires special meaning since votaries of the political philosophy of “Hindutva” had assumed that appeal to voters in the name of this political creed would not attract a penalty under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act as only a “way of life” was implied and not political communalism.

The judgment was passed 4:3. It is true, as the dissenting judges have argued, that for seven decades India has run as a secular state and invocation of religion or particular castes has not played a noteworthy role in elections and, as such, there was no need to amplify the meaning or interpretation of Article 123 of the RPA. However, the minority section of the constitution bench appears to have failed to appreciate the confusion created by the 1995 verdict equating “Hindutva” with “a way of life”.

Since the constitution bench led by the CJI was looking at the matter with that point of reference, imagine the malign impact (on the eve of crucial polls in Uttar Pradesh and four other states) if the verdict had kept silent on invoking “Hindutva” or “Hinduism” in the forthcoming election campaign or, worse, implied that this was non-prejudicial and kosher.

Seen in this perspective, the majority led by the CJI was not over-reaching and seeking to embark on a course of legislation by the judiciary.

Given the country’s bewildering diversities, Indian democracy is a complex project, which has been fairly successful and has been guided by the genius of its people. But the risk of majoritarian tendencies taking hold politically and socially, with the inevitability of this impacting the election process, needs to be guarded against. Already there have been periods when the risk of religion and caste casting a shadow on the poll process has seemed high. The Monday judgment can be framed in this broad context. The judicial relief would help to strengthen the faith of our minorities in our election process.