The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): In his discourse on secularism within the Indian Constitution, Justice Joseph highlighted the political dimension as paramount. He examined Section 123 of the Representation of People’s Act, defining electoral malpractices in this context.
Referring to the seminal S R Bommai v Union of India case, Justice Joseph underscored the Supreme Court’s affirmation of secularism as a fundamental constitutional tenet. He cited Justice Jeevan Reddy’s opinion from the case, emphasizing the imperative for political parties to maintain impartiality.
Justice Joseph asserted the state’s obligation to remain neutral and refrain from endorsing or favoring any religion. He contended that true secularism entails treating all religions equally, echoing the essence of the S R Bommai case.
Justice Joseph proceeded to critique the contentious ‘Hindutva’ judgment of the Supreme Court, particularly the 1995 ruling in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte. This case centered on speeches by Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackery, invoking religion during electoral campaigns.
He argued that the judgment’s interpretation of Hinduism was flawed, as it disregarded the perspective presented by figures like Savarkar. Justice Joseph highlighted Savarkar’s nuanced view of Hindutva and criticized the Court for not delving into it.
Furthermore, Justice Joseph contested the Court’s portrayal of Hinduism as a uniform culture, challenging the notion of overriding diversity. He emphasized every individual’s right to preserve their cultural identity under Article 29 of the Constitution.
Justice Joseph advocated for amendments to the Representation of People Act to address loopholes allowing religious appeals during elections. He proposed holding not only candidates but also influential figures accountable for such appeals, ensuring fair electoral practices.
Moreover, he called for revisions to provisions requiring proof of consent for electoral malpractices, recognizing the influence of charismatic leaders’ speeches.
Justice Joseph asserted the state’s duty to uphold secularism by maintaining impartiality and treating all religions equally. He cautioned against politicizing religion, affirming that adherence to constitutional principles safeguards secularism effectively.
