BOMBAY: Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray has welcomed the recent Supreme court ruling that appeals on the basis of caste, community, religion or language could not be avoided as long as the law recognized such parties for the purpose of elections.
The division Bench had, however, upheld the Bombay High Court judgment delivered in 1991 setting aside the election of Shiv Sena MLA DR. Deshmukh. The Bench held that it ‘was convincingly established that he had permitted the display of posters, during the election campaign, appealing to yolers to elect him “for the purpose of teaching a lesson to Muslims.” Jnan editorial in last week’s Samnaa, the Sena mouthpiece, Thackeray said the judgment had virally negated the earlier court decisions which set aside the election of Scha and BJP Jegislators for ‘using religion” while campaigning. He said that he was greally impressed by the Supreme Cour verdict asit would clear up alot of ruisunderstanding on the issue,
He said if Imams are to be paid salary from the government treasury, there was nothing wrong in demanding payment of salaries to priests in temples. However, president of the Bombay
Bar Association Iqbal Chagla said “The Supreme Court judgment makes a very fine and dangerous distinction, Parties may use it as an excuse to stand for elections from religious platform.”
Maharashtra’s advocate general CJ. Sawant on the other hand felt:”Itis a very good judgment and considers the reality of life. However, political parties must refrain from getting votes on the basis of religion.”
Former high court judge R.A. Jahagirdar said: “As long as election propaganda does not violate provisions 153 A and 295 A of the Indian Penal Code and does not harm relations with other religious ‘communities, there is no need to ban it under election law.”
However, another former high court judge, S.M, Daud felt: This judgment is the refusal to call aspadea spade, it is an attempt to water down previous pronouncements. If this is the auitude, we may as well forsake secularism.”
Former chief justice of India Y.V. Chandrachud said I consider that appealing for voles in the name of one’s religion makes one fall foul of the Constitution.”
“With the greatest respect to this statement by the division Bench of the Supreme Court, I feel that this statement of the Bench merely goes by the letter of the law and forgets its spirit, You cannot ask for votes in the name of your religion which would be ant secular Adopting a contrary view, former Justice of the Andhra Pradesh high court Justice S.C. Pratap said: This judgment is in accord with the Constitutional provisions and the electoral law of the country. It strikes a balance between freedom of expression and religious freedom. One hope that it will help maintain a social stability in society. Former advocate general of Maharashtra DR. Andhyarujina said “persean appeal to one’s religion is democratic right and not objectionable. It is only when an appeal to religion inflames passions and runs down another religion that it becomes objectionable.”
Article extracted from this publication >> July 28, 1995
