CASE
NOTE
Title
and citation
With
Narayan
Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa & Ors.
·
Bench: T.S. Thakur, J. S.A. Bobde,
Madan
B. Lokur, J. L. Nageswara Rao,
Dr
D Y Chandrachud, J, J. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. Uday Umesh Lalit,
·
Date – 02 January, 2017
History
of the case
The
bench was dealing with the appeal filed in 1992 by BJP leader Abhiram Singh,
whose election to 1990 Maharashtra Assembly was set aside in 1991 by the Bombay
High Court on the ground that he had appealed for votes on the basis of
Hindu religion. In April 1996 a three Judge Bench in Abhiram singh v. C D
Commachen,[1] directed Chief
Justice to constitute a larger bench to hear and decide the matter
authoritatively. Then 5 Judge bench was constituted. While the five-judge bench
was hearing this matter on January 30, it was informed that the identical
issue was raised in the election petition filed by one Narayan Singh against
BJP leader Sunderlal Patwa and the apex court’s another Constitution Bench of
five Judges has referred a larger Bench of seven Judges.
On October
25 the seven judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court which was
hearing a slew of petitions relating to decisions and questions on electoral
malpractices arising out of its earlier judgments said for now it will not
touch on its 1995 definition of “hindutva is a way of life and not a
religion” and also not ban its use during elections.[2]
If it would be considered that Hinduism is not religion but a way of life then asking vote in the name of Hinduism is not a corrupt pratice. This question still stands.
Issues
·
The question for determination in this case was
whether section 123(3) of the Act prohibits appeal to vote or refrain from
voting any person based only on the religion, race, caste or community of that
person or whether an appeal to vote or refrain from voting in the name of
religion, race, caste community or language is altogether prohibited by this
provision.
·
Whether there should be purposive interpretation
of the words or literal interpretation of Section 123 of The Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951.
·
Is Seeking Vote In Name Of Religion “Corrupt”
Practice?
Contentions
The
entire controversy was hinged on the interpretation of the pronoun his. This judgement by the Court is also
a testimony of the fact that language is, but an imperfect medium of conveying
thoughts.
Dissenting
Opinion
Former
Chief Justice T S Thakur passed the ruling by a 4:3 majority. The bench was
interpreting section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act.
Justices
D Y Chandrachud, A K Goel and U U Lalit dissented from the majority view. On
their part the dissenting judges said such an interference by the court almost
amounted to judicial redrafting of law. They said prohibiting candidates from
articulating issues effecting voters reduced democracy to an abstraction.
The
majority, except Bobde J. has however relied on purposive interpretation and
not literal or textual interpretation for arriving at their decision. Bobde J.
interestingly argues that the pronoun his refers to not only the candidates
contesting the election but even voters and therefore the provision literally
also prohibits appeals to religion, race, caste or language altogether.
Reasoning
Chandrachud
J. has highlighted how purposive interpretation is only possible if there is
only one possible theory for purposive interpretation and the Court must not
while interpreting a provision in a purposive manner, choose a particular
theory of purposive interpretation when there are sound constitutional
principles for a purposive theory which militates against the one preferred by
the Court.
But
T. S. Thakur C.J. forming part of the majority verdict in his concurring
opinion has found only one theory of purposive interpretation which is
preferable under the Indian Constitution.
Law
Points/Rule of law
The
majority held that
“Election
is a secular exercise and therefore a process should be followed….the
relationship between man and god is an individual choice and state should keep
this in mind”
Conclusion
The
seven judges bench by a majority of 4:3 decided that this provision prohibits
appeal to vote or refrain from voting in the name of religion, race, caste
community or language altogether and that it should not be given a narrow
interpretation by confining the import of the provision to appeals to vote or
refrain from voting any person based only on the religion, race, caste,
community or language of that person only.
No comments:
Post a Comment