In the complex landscape of electoral laws and ethical considerations in India, understanding the legal framework and its practical implications is crucial. This explainer discusses Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, use of religion in election campaigns, the significance of the Model Code of Conduct, historical shifts in electoral regulations, landmark judicial rulings, and the imperative for maintaining electoral integrity amidst societal diversity.
Q: What does the Representation of the People Act, 1951, entail regarding electoral practices?
A: Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) condemns appeals made by candidates or their associates to vote or refrain from voting based on factors like religion, race, caste, community, or language.
Similarly, Section 123(3A) prohibits candidates from inciting enmity or hatred among citizens on these grounds during elections.
Violation of these provisions can lead to disqualification from contesting elections for up to six years.
Q: What does the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) entail?
A: The MCC is a set of guidelines crafted for political parties and candidates, developed through consensus among political entities. They voluntarily agree to adhere to its principles, which prohibit actions that could exacerbate societal divisions or incite animosity between different groups.
Implemented rigorously since the 1990s, the MCC bars parties and candidates from activities that could heighten tensions among various castes, religious communities, or linguistic groups. Specifically, it prohibits appeals to caste or communal sentiments to garner votes and bans the use of places of worship for election propaganda.
Despite lacking statutory backing, the MCC has gained traction over the years due to its stringent enforcement by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Q: What historical changes have influenced electoral laws regarding communal appeals?
A: Before 1961, the RP Act allowed “systemic” appeals based on religion, caste, or community. However, an amendment in 1961 removed the term “systemic” to discourage even sporadic appeals on these grounds. Despite this, instances of leaders making religious appeals for votes have occurred frequently, with Bal Thackeray being a notable figure convicted for such practices in 1995.
Q: What has the Supreme Court ruled regarding religious appeals in elections?
A: In the case of Abhiram Singh versus C. D. Commachen (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that candidates cannot appeal for votes based on their own religion or that of the voters.
This interpretation emphasized the secular nature of elections and stressed that religion should remain a personal matter, separate from the electoral process.
Q: What measures are necessary to maintain electoral integrity?
A: It is imperative for political parties and candidates to address citizens’ concerns based on traits like religion or caste through constructive policies, without compromising the secular fabric of the nation.
Additionally, the overt or covert use of places of worship for canvassing and the support of religious leaders in politics should be discouraged to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and the secular principles of the state.