ShibanKhaibri
Those of our politicians who all these years have been pursuing the policy of doing political business on the basis of caste, religion, creed, language , region etc and not only sustaining but keep continuously sustaining vote bank politics as a means to enter august houses of our democracy , now have to taste the judicial ire . That vote bank politics has attained proportions of legitimacy and made as an instrument of fighting and winning elections is a reality in our parliamentary form of democracy. Propounders, nay protagonists of this practice have made it fairly known that doing so was their right besides campaigning this as their being “progressive” and “secular” in outlook regardless of the consequences thereof leading to striking at the roots of the propriety of fair and legitimate electoral practices. Where politicians as law makers should have entered to cleanse the system, our apex court enters to enforce probity , transparency and the rule of equity.
A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment on Monday, Jan 3, 2017 ruling against and disapproving of the practice of seeking votes in the name of religion, caste, race or language as it would constitute a corrupt practice. This constitutional bench was led by the ex- Chief Justice of India, T.S. Thakur by a 4- 3 margin. Article 123 of the Peoples Representation Act has been thus amplified. Is it a big leap meant to promote much required true secularism in our electoral process ? At the same time, does it have provisions of keeping some surveillance on selective or choosy secularism even outside the requirements for our election process? How can that be checked as that precisely is indulged in on a long term basis only to gain votes? Congress led UPA had done it brazenly in the sense the former Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh declaring that the minorities in the country had the fist right on the country’s resources. That amounted to segregating people on the basis of majority and minority ostensibly on the basis of religion.
The concept of majority and minority has been defined and delineated on the basis of religion which could be analysed in the light of Justice Verma’s judgment in 1995 about Hindutva not being a religion but a way of life, hence when the well-definedmajority pursuing the faith of ancient Hinduism was no longer a religion then other community next to it in number, as a natural corollary, could not claim to be a minority in the strict sense. This judgment, the pronouncement of which was made twice by the Supreme Court in 1995 was not challenged by the Parliament to deny the political and psychological boost to the particular section of the country because of this judgment which could , inter alia, not be construed to be a corrupt practice if any reference to the word Hindutva was mentioned while campaigning for a candidate in an election. The question or the query in respect of the latest judgment would be whether the 1995 judgment remained unchallenged or it was a revised version of that pronouncement thus encompassing the entire electorate. Had we read too much into the nuances of Justice Verma’s views and intentions on the subject, if the current judgment though with a wafer thin majority of 4;3 is any indication of setting aside the views of Justice Verma.
Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act clarifies that it is only an act or speech inciting hatred and differences between religions and communities that falls under the ambit of the corrupt practices. The spirit of the observations of Justice Verma had to be seen in the context of the fact that he had not put forth his own views but the earlier decisions of the court in relation to the interpretation of the word Hindu and Hinduism . Now the question again is whether instances like the Congress party using the “good offices” of the Imam of Jama Masjid Delhi for asking his community members to vote for that party in 2014 general elections was a corrupt practice? In the same way, did it not again amount to corrupt practices , for example, the AAP Chief Kejriwal knocking at the door of many Imams and Maulvis in Varanasi seeking their help in getting votes for him from that Parliamentary constituency in 2014 general elections? Has the recent judgment got to be seen in having widened its ambit to discourage appealing to people vote for a candidate or a Party on the plea that a particular religious section had economically not benefited from government funds or opportunities’ allocation as per latest census and population figures and hence a particular candidate from that group should be elected? In the same way, appealing for joining a particular religious society with the other sections of a particular caste to form a combined force to win elections and such “joining together” to remain confined to elections only, not constitute violation of fair electoral practices? Even though individual instances and cases cannot be cited in judgments for obvious reasons, the crux and the purpose of the instant judgment need to be understood in that seeking votes on grounds of religion, caste, creed, language , region etc would constitute a corrupt practice and therefore, could mean disqualification of a candidate indulging in such practices.
Observing that the Parliament did nothing since 1996 when a five judge bench made a reference to a seven judge bench on the impact of using Hindutva in election, the former Chief Justice T.S.Thakur asked if Parliament was waiting for the Apex Court to pronounce a verdict as in case of curbing sexual harassment at work places….The court observed that the Parliament had done nothing in the last 20 years while the reference was pending . The observations of the court point out towards its avoidable activism, the space for which is provided by the law makers, as where law makers should have taken initiatives , even belatedly, the apex court had to intervene. This could also be analysed in the case of Shah Banoo where the then Congress government made no delay in intervening , again, only with an eye on the vote bank and yet claim to be secular. Should we all still feel reluctant to put India first rather than a particular caste, religion, creed or language to use lavishly to garner votes?Relationship between a man and the God , the way – manner- approach- belief etc being entirely an individual choice and why should these factors lead towards polarisation of the electorate?
Let the other face of the issue be slightly looked at in that the ground realities in our country in respect of the identity politics appear to be a hard nut to be cracked and this judgment may not be entirely catering to address that vital part of the issue. The chances are that certain political parties shall be incessantly researching sufficiently adequately to circumvent the law and in one way or the other, projecting societies as “exploited ” and as “victims” impliedly take recourse to playing identity politics to the hilt. Dalit centric BSP, religion centric AIMIM, caste cum religion centric SP in UP with MY or Muslim Yadav combination or Tamil based DMK are examples to be seen in the perspective. All of these cannot be expected to completely revise their respective outlook. At the same time, since the decision to treat Hinuism and Hindutva as a way of life has not, per-se, been set aside clearly in this landmark judgment though with a majority of one, petitions and complaints shall perhaps reach the apex court mostly by a few of those candidates who might not win in elections citing the grounds of having used such terms even as a passing reference by the winning candidates.
Let us see the case of those candidates who face court charges on various offences but are fielded by their respective parties with the main objective of winning the elections, caring not in the least, about probity and morality . While it is on the basis of sufficient proof or grounds that a Police officer prepares a case and submits in the court against an accused whereupon the court frames a charge sheet but since “innocent till proved guilty” is the cardinal principle of the system of the justice, such accused candidates with taint are fielded to win and rule .The fact of the matter, however, is that a broad based framework aiming at vast electoral reforms and reframing of laws or amending the existing ones, weak if any, can address the issue but are our Law makers ready for that? If not, then why should judicial activism irk Netas and their Parties, at the outset, with vote Bank Bandi ?
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel