yourcontentcreator - Wooing voters on caste, religion lines no ground to bar party: HC

Wooing voters on caste, religion lines no ground to bar party: HC

Lucknow | Report

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that, under existing election law, neither an individual nor a political party can be completely barred from contesting polls merely because they seek to influence voters on the basis of caste or religion.

Delivering judgment on a long-pending public interest litigation (PIL) on Tuesday, a division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice A.K. Chaudhary underlined that any power to impose such a blanket bar lies with the legislature, not the courts or the Election Commission of India (ECI).

PIL on caste-based rallies

The verdict came in a PIL filed in 2013 by Motilal Yadav, who had sought directions to curb caste-based rallies organised by political parties in Uttar Pradesh. In an interim order passed in July 2013, another bench had stayed such rallies “with immediate effect” across the state.

In its final order, the present bench clarified the legal position: while caste‑ or religion‑based appeals can amount to corrupt practices attracting disqualification in specific cases, there is no statutory mechanism at present to pre‑emptively ban a party from contesting elections on this ground alone.

Court: No power to deregister party on this basis

The bench held that Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) is the only provision that allows disqualification for electoral malpractice. The law, it noted, does not presently contemplate a complete ban on a political party simply because it woos voters on caste or religious lines.

Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the judges said the Election Commission does not have the power to deregister a political party except in limited, clearly defined circumstances. Those include situations such as a party having obtained registration by fraud or having ceased to abide by basic constitutional principles.

At the same time, the court pointed out that recognition of a political party — which determines access to reserved election symbols and certain privileges — can be suspended or withdrawn under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. However, expanding these grounds or adding new disqualifications is a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary.

Distinction from corrupt practices ruling

The ruling comes against the backdrop of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has progressively tightened restrictions on the use of caste and religion in electioneering.

In Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen (2017), a seven‑judge Constitution Bench held by a 4:3 majority that soliciting votes on the basis of religion, caste, race, community or language amounts to a “corrupt practice” under Section 123(3) of the RP Act, and can render an individual candidate’s election void. The Court made clear that such appeals are impermissible whether they invoke the identity of the candidate, the opponent, or the voters themselves.

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday did not dilute that position. Instead, it drew a clear line between:

post‑facto consequences for specific corrupt practices by candidates, and

a pre‑emptive, blanket prohibition on a political party or person from contesting elections.

While corrupt practices may lead to setting aside an election or disqualifying a candidate in accordance with the RP Act, the bench said there is no current provision that allows authorities to entirely bar a party from the electoral arena for using caste or religion as a plank.

Legislature’s domain, not the court’s

Emphasising separation of powers, the bench stated that if Parliament considers it necessary to introduce stricter sanctions — such as a statutory bar on parties that mobilise voters on caste or religious lines — it is open to the legislature to amend the law accordingly.

“Under the present legal framework,” the court observed, any move to create such a bar would amount to law‑making, which lies beyond judicial authority. The bench stressed that courts may interpret existing provisions but cannot read into them a power that Parliament has not provided.

Social message: Law not enough to cure prejudice

In a broader observation, the High Court remarked that narrow‑mindedness based on caste and religion cannot be eradicated solely through legal provisions. Lasting change, it said, would require inculcating constitutional values and a broader social outlook within families and educational institutions.

The bench thus disposed of the PIL, maintaining that while caste‑ and religion‑based mobilisation in politics remains a matter of concern, any move to impose a blanket electoral bar on this ground must originate from the legislature, not the judiciary or the Election Commission.

🚀 Created with YourContentCreator

This content was generated by Hemen Parekh using YourContentCreator — a smart content generation platform where you simply choose a genre, articulation, and narrative to create powerful content instantly.

Unlike traditional AI chatbots, there's no need to type prompts — just select and generate.