Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar K. Kunte (1996) 1 SCC 130

In this case, the election of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo was held on 19th December 1987 and was deemed to be as void under section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Bombay High Court held that the Shiv Sena candidate was using corrupt practices to appeal to the voters.

The allegation was based upon the three speeches Bal Thackeray gave on 29.11.1987, 09.12.1987, and 10.12.1987. Bal Thackeray was also served with a notice under section 99 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its decision had said that the use of the words "Hindutva" and "Hinduism" by the defendants in their political campaign went against sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act. Thereafter, the defendants brought an appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court and hence, took the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Issues:
Three major issues were raised in this case – (i) which speech referring to "Hindutva" or "Hinduism" or any such religion during political campaign is violative of section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act?; (ii) whether Bal Thackeray's appeal for votes based on "Hindutva" would come under his right under Article 25(1) of the Constitution?; and (iii) whether Bal Thackeray's speech come under his right under Article 19 of the Constitution?

Held:
Section 123(3) of the Act states that "an appeal by any candidate or its agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate to vote for any person on grounds of his religion, caste, race, community, and or language or use of a religious symbol or use of national symbols or national emblem to further the cause of the candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate".

Then, section 123(3A) of the Act states that "the promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language for the furtherance of the candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any other candidate. It was observed and opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the interpretation of the speeches should be derived from the general effect it would have on the masses and not on the feelings of the speaker who was addressing a huge audience. Also, the judges in the afore-mentioned case interpreted "Hindutva" and "Hinduism" as a way of life but also inferred that the terms could change depending upon the facts of the case and hence, are not generic in nature.

Further, it was then alleged by the defendants that the campaign was comprised of propagation of one's religion were under article 25(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on and referred to the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra (1976) 2 SCC 15, where both the candidates - one from the Muslim League and one from the Congress were Muslim candidates. In this case, Bukhari was held for corrupt practices under section 123(3) and (3A) of the Act and, it was established by the Hon'ble Court that although the Constitution of India under article 25(1)(b) allows for the propagation of one's religion but it does not allow for the furtherance of a candidate.

The Court in the case of Yeshwant Prabhoo interpreted that article 25(1)(b) of the Constitution cannot be used by the electoral candidates to gain votes based on religion or to hamper the campaign of any other candidate based on their religion in the name of propagating their religion. To this, it was argued by the other side that section 123(3) and (3A) of the Act violated the constitutional right provided under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to save both – the provision from being violative of constitutional rights, sections 123(3) and (3A) of the Act shall be read as reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to this issue referred to the mindsets of the lawmakers, constituent assembly debates, and the history of India by way of referring to various judgments. It was held by the Hon'ble Court that section 123 of the Act was to be held as reasonable restrictions to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Analysis of the Judgement:
According to me, the Court, in this case, considered multiple aspects like – judicial interpretation of "Hindutva" and "Hinduism", analyzed the preamble and legislative intent, considered balancing free speech with electoral integrity, and several other aspects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court acknowledged that terms like "Hindutva" or "Hinduism" are broad and carry cultural and philosophical meanings rather than just religious ones. The Court rightly observed that the interpretation of these terms can be interpreted on the basis of the facts of the case in hand. According to me, the judges took a contextual approach focusing that the meaning of the terms should be interpreted in light of the current societal conditions, and such individual should consider their possible influence on voters.

Such distinction stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court depicts nuanced approach. It was rightly observed by the Court that these terms could be used to manipulate public sentiments on religious lines, which is strictly prohibited under section 123(3) of the Act. Further, the judges also rightly examined that the Preamble of the Constitution can be inferred to understand the intention of the legislature behind the Act. By looking at the purpose of the Act the Hon'ble Supreme Court aligned their interpretation with the secular principles on which the nation was founded.

Then, the Hon'ble Court also clarified that the right provided under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions, specifically within the context of elections. The Court also held that religious appeals during campaigns are a corrupt practice and shall be restricted to protect the democratic nature of the nation. By interpreting the approach opted by the Hon'ble Court it can be inferred that while free speech is a fundamental right provided under the Constitution, it is not absolute in nature and must be regulated carefully to ensure that it does not harm any kind of public order or violate the secular nature of the nation.

However, the judgement provided by the Hon'ble Court was fair, but it was not fully enforced as Bal Thackeray, being a prominent figure in the Maharashtra politics, faced minimal consequences. He was only fined rather than being imprisoned as there were chances of possible riots if he was being imprisoned. Hence, a clear reflection of compromising Court's verdict and state's public order can be witnessed. According to me, this can raise questions upon the applicability of the legal principles by the Court.

This could create or portray an image in the minds of such influential figures that law is quite lenient when it comes to the punishment of such influential figures. Further, as the Court established it that religious appeals are corrupt practices, it could play a vital role in discouraging communal politics in order to protect India's secular and democratic nature. Also, the Court's interpretation of "Hindu" and "Hindutva" played quite important role, as it was clarified by the Court that the interpretation of these terms must be based on context, keeping in mind the impact they would have on the minds of the public in general.

Therefore, it can be concluded that this judgement was successful enough in reinforcing the public trust in India's judiciary as by handling such a complex issue involving religion, politics and freedom of speech, the judges succeeded in demonstrating the capability of the judiciary to address such legal questions.

Written By: Rakshit Kumar Jha