Not revisiting “Hindutva” verdict: SC

NEW DELHI: A seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur on Tuesday clarified that it was not revisiting the court’s 1995 judgment which held that seeking votes in the name of Hindutva or Hinduism would not result in disqualification as the two words denoted “a way of life,” not religion.

The SC is hearing a contentious matter relating to electoral malpractices. File photo

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, October 25

A seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice TS Thakur on Tuesday clarified that it was not revisiting the court’s 1995 judgment which held that seeking votes in the name of Hindutva or Hinduism would not result in disqualification as the two words denoted “a way of life,” not religion.

“We are not going into the larger debate as to what is Hindutva. We will not reconsider the 1995 judgment. We will confine ourselves” as to what amounted to misuse of religion, caste, race or language for wooing the electorate in violation of the ban under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act 1951, the bench said.

Its other members are Justices MB Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud and LN Rao.

The bench said its focus would be on the possible nexus between religious leaders and politicians. It is hearing a batch of petitions pertaining to disqualification or non-disqualification of candidates on charges of violating the ban under the 1951 Act.

The petitions were referred to this bench by several smaller benches as important aspects required interpretation of Constitutional provisions.

The apex court’s 1995 judgment, authored by Justice JS Verma, had come in the case of Manohar Joshi versus NB Patil. The bench had ruled that Joshi’s statement promising formation of a “Hindu State of Maharashtra” did not amount to appealing to the voters in the name of religion.

The bench made the clarification as social activist Teesta Setalvad and two others, who have sought to intervene in the case, found fault with the apex court ruling that reference to Hindutva or Hinduism could not be construed as misuse of religion.

They pleaded for intervening in the case, contending that the apex court could come to the right conclusions only if it heard the views of neutral persons like them, instead of restricting the proceedings to the winning and losing candidates.

“Parties in the present appeals are people with allegiance to some political party or the other hence their submissions may not necessarily uphold the Constitutional framework,” they said in their application.

Theatre activist Shamsul Islam and journalist Dilip Mandal are the other applicants.