SC refuses to set up Constitution Bench to re-examine its 1995 Hindutva verdict

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to set up a Constitution Bench to re-examine its 1995 verdict that said ‘Hindutva’ was a way of life and using the expression in an electoral speech would not amount to corrupt practice under Representation of People Act (RPA).

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 9

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to set up a Constitution Bench to re-examine its 1995 verdict that said ‘Hindutva’ was a way of life and using the expression in an electoral speech would not amount to corrupt practice under Representation of People Act (RPA).

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid mentioned the matter before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi for urgently setting up a Constitution Bench for the purpose.

“This is an important matter regarding corrupt practices in elections. Let it be considered if it should go to five-judge bench,” Khurshid submitted.

However, the Bench rejected Khurshid’s demand. “Every case may be important for you but not for us. There are more pressing cases. Our priorities are different from yours,” the CJI told Khurshid.

The former law minister had approached of Congress leader CD Comachen, who had won an election petition against a BJP candidate, Abhiram Singh, in the Bombay High Court.

On Singh’s appeal, the Supreme Court in 1995 ruled that ‘Hindutva’ as a way of life. It was referred to a five-judge Bench in 1996.

In 2015 the Bench referred a limited question to a seven-judge Bench for interpreting the word “his” under section 123 (3) of the RPA. In January 2017, the top court held that a candidate seeking votes in the name of his or his voters’ religion, caste or community would amount to a corrupt practice. Then, it sent his case back to an “appropriate bench”.

The petitioner has again demanded that matter be heard by a five-judge Bench, instead of a two-judge Bench, as the confusion over import of ‘Hindutva’ needed to be sorted out further.

“One of the questions that arises for consideration at this stage is whether an appeal by a candidate for a ‘Hindutva’ state or ‘Hindu’ religion or ‘Hinduism’ is not an appeal for theocratic state,” he submitted in his application contending the matter was pending in the Supreme Court for almost 22 years.