Only such persons are regarded as candidates who had been or claimed to have been duly

nominated as a candidate at an election.

Section 100 of the Representation of People’s Act : Grounds for declaring election to be
void.—8 [(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if 3 [the High Court] is of opinion—

[the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.]

123 Corrupt practices.—The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the
purposes of this Act:—

[(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of
his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols
or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem,
for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially
affecting the election of any candidate:

The court also held the appellant in Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik’s case guilty of
committing a corrupt practice under s 123(3) for making an appeal in a speech at a
congregation of Hindu devotees in a Hindu temple, during a Hindu religious festival with
emphasis on the Hindu religion, for giving votes to a Hindu candidate espousing the cause of
Hindu religion

Due respect for the religious beliefs and practices, race, creed, culture and language of other
citizens is one of the basic postulates of our democratic system. Under the guise of protecting
your own religion, culture, or creed you cannot embark on personal attacks on those of others
or whip up low herd instincts and animosities or irrational fears between groups to secure
electoral victories.

This judgment was followed in Harcharan Singh v. Sajjan Singh MANU/SC/0165/1984 :

A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 236. An appeal to vote for the candidate in the name of Akal Takht with all
the consequences of Hukamnama of Akal Takht was highlighted before the electorate. It was
held that appeals in the name of religion was made on behalf of returned candidate and he
was held guilty of corrupt practice, under Section 123(3) and it was held thus :-

"The paramount and basic purpose underlying Section 123(3) of the Act is the concept of
secular democracy. Section 123(3) was enacted so as to eliminate from the electoral process
appeals to divisive factors such as religion, caste, etc. which give vent to irrational passions.
It is essential that powerful emotions generated by religion should not be permitted to be
exhibited during election and that decision and choice of the people are not coloured in any
way Condemnation of electoral campaign on lines of religion, etc, is necessarily implicitly in
the language of Section 123(3) of the Act. Consequently, the section must be so construed as
to suppress the mischief and advance the retried). Legislative history of this section is
important from the point of view. The Statement of Object and Reasons of the Amending
Act, 1961 clearly mentions the objects of the amendment. It was for curbing communal and
separatist tendencies in the country. It is proposed to widen the scope of the corrupt practice
mentioned in clause (3) of Section 123 of 1951 Act and to provide for a new corrupt practice
In order to determine whether certain activities come within the mischief of Section 123(3)
regard must be bad to the substance of the matter rather than to the mere form or phraseology.
The inhibition of Section 123(3) should not be permitted to be circumvented indirectly or by
circuitous or subtle devices. The Court should attach importance to the effect and impact of
the acts complained of and always keep in mind the paramount purpose of Section 123(3)
namely to prevent religious influence from entering the electoral field. The nature and
consequence of an act may not appear on its very face but the same can be implied having
regard to the language, the context, the status and position of the person issuing the statement,
the appearance and known religion of the candidate, the class of persons to whom the
statement or act is directed etc.

Gurtej Singh vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (01.08.1989 - PHHC) :
MANU/PH/0507/1989

In the case of S.B. Bukhari v. B.R. Mehra, MANU/SC/0277/1975 : AIR1975SC1788 , we

have the scope of section 123(4), (3) and (3A) set out in detail and the relevant passage is as
follows :
"It seems to us that section 123, sub-sections' (2) and (3) and (3A) were enacted so as to
eliminate, from the electoral process, appeals to those divisive factors which arouse irrational
passions that run counter to the basic tenets of our Constitution, and, indeed, of any civilized
political and social order. Due respect for the religious beliefs and practices, race, creed,
culture, and language of other citizens is one of the basic postulates of our democratic
system. Under the guise of protecting your own religion, culture, or creed you cannot embark
on personal attacks on those of others or whip up low heart instincts and animosities or
irrational fears between groups to secure electoral victories. The line has to be drawn by the
courts, between what is permissible and what is prohibited, after taking into account the facts
and circumstances of each case interpreted in the context in which the statement or acts
complained of were made.

Sharad J. Rao vs. Subhash Desai and Ors. (03.04.1991 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0668/1991

The next case is the case of Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, MANU/SC/0180/1964 :
[1964]7SCR790 . One of the important principles laid down in this case is that a corrupt
practice under section 123(3) can be committed by a candidate by appearing to the voters to
vote for him on the ground of his religion even though his rival candidate may belong to the
same religion. The relevant observation is as follows :

"It is true that a corrupt practice under section 123(3) can be committed by a candidate by
appealing to the voters to vote for him on the ground of his religion even though his rival
candidate may belong to the same religion. If, for instance, a Sikh candidate were to appeal to
the voters to vote for him, because he was a Sikh and add that his rival candidate, though a
Sikh in name, was not true to the religious tenets of Sikhism or was a heretic and as such,
outside the pale of the Sikh religion, that would amount to a corrupt practice under section
123(3)".

The second relevant observation is as follows :

The allegation in this case was that the appeal to the voters was to vote for "Panth". The
Supreme Court held that the word 'Panth" did not mean Sikh religion and on that basis it was
held that there can be no charge under section 123(3).

Sharad J. Rao vs. Subhash Desai and Ors. (03.04.1991 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0668/1991

The next case is the case of Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, MANU/SC/0274/1974 :
[1975]1SCR643 . In this case, there was a hand-bill. The hand-bill exhorted Muslim voters to
support the appellant for his Islamic way of life and to repel the first respondent for his
heathen habits. The learned Judge posed the question as follows :

"Is it appeal to religion if voters are told that a candidate consumes unorthodox food ? That a
brahim eats beef, that a Muslim eats pork, that a jain eats at night? Should the law lend itself,
in a secular State, to the little susceptibilities of orthodox tenets?"

He further observes ........

"True, the vice is injection of religion into politics and playing up fanaticism to distract
franchise. But the back-lash of this provision is a legal enquiry into what is the basis faith, not
its frills and filigress."

He then observes........

"what is appeal to religion depends on time and circumstances, the ethos of a community, the
bearing of the deviation on the cardinal tenets and other variables."

It was held that corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123(3), was committed.

Sharad J. Rao vs. Subhash Desai and Ors. (03.04.1991 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0668/1991