DR. RAMESH YESHWANT PRABOO versus SHRI PRABHAKER KASHINATH KUNTE AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 11-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. RAMESH YESHWANT PRABOO 
A 
v. 
SHRI PRABHAKER KASHINATH KUNTE AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
Election Laws : 
Representation of the people Act, 1951-Sections 116A, 100(1)(b), 
123(3) & (3A),-Petition for setting aside the election on account of corrnpt C 
practices-Use of religion for soliciting votes by successful candidate and his _ 
agent-Appeal to vote or refrain from voting prohibited. 
'Hindutva' Meaning of-lndicates way of life of Indian people-Not to 
be confined to describing people practicing Hindu religion. 
Corrnpt practice-All references to 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduisim; in 
speeches need not be corrnpt practice-Speech to preserve own language, 
religion, culture etc. not forbidden by the Act:-The type of reference and 
meaning sought to be conveyed in the speech to be considered before arriving 
at the decision. 
Positive appeal-Appeal made on ground of candidates' religion. 
Negative Appeal-Appeal to refrain from voting on ground of other 
candidates' religion. 
D 
E 
Both positive and negative appeals prohibited under the Act-Inference F 
that may lead to the conclusion of the existence of such appeals is suffi-
cient-The manner in which common man understands the speech to be kept 
view. 
The election of the Appellant, who was returned successful from y.ile G 
Parle constituency to the Maharashtra Assembly in 1987, was challenged 
by the respondent under Section 116A of the R.P. Act, alleging corrupt 
practice under Ss.123(3) & (3A), of the R.P. Act. It was pleaded that both 
the Appellant as well as his agent Mr. Bal Thackery not only appealed for 
votes on the basis of the candidate's own religion but also promoted or 
tended to arouse ill feelings between the people of different communities H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A and the election petitioner relied on certain speeches made during the 
election meetings. 
The High Court came to the finding that three public speeches of 
Mr. Thackery in the election meeting of the Appellant were appeals to. vote 
for t11e Appellant in the name of his religion, and were also in the nature 
B of arousing communal feelings. Thus the High Court upheld the charge of 
corrupt practice on the ground of S.100(1) (b) of the R.P. Act and set aside 
the election of the Appellant and also named Mr. Thackery in accordance 
with s.99 of the R.P. Act. 
C 
Before this court the plea taken by the Appellants was, inter-alia, that 
s.123(3) & (3A) were constitutionally invalid and violative of Article 
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, since the freedom of speech guaranteed in the 
said Article is absolute, the words 'decency' and 'morality' refer to sexual 
morality only, to get the protection of Article 19(2), the provisions of 
s.123(3) & (3A) have to be read as reasonable restriction, only a direct 
D appeal on the ground of the candidate's religion which also has a tendency 
to affect public order will fall within the purview of Section 123(3) & (3A), 
inter-alia because the object of introducing the term 'his' in the substituted 
sub-Section (3) is only tu restrict the scope to cases of direct appeal on the 
basis of the candidate's religion, a speech where religion is referred to but 
E does not directly appeal to voters on the ground of religion is not hit by 
s.123(3) or (3A), that the speeches to 'Hindutva', which is a reference to 
Indian culture and not only to Hindu religion, the speeches were a 
criticism of the Congress party's attitude which was to favour the 
minorities against the Hindus. 
F 
On behalf of Mr. Thackery, it was submitted that there was non-com-
pliance with the requirements of s.99 since he was not informed of the 
precise charges against him nor he was supplied with the particulars. In 
general it was also pleaded that the election petition was lacking in 
material particulars and the particulars which were brought in at the stage 
G of evidence were to be excluded, that the High Court has arrived at the 
decision based on mere impressions and had not Limited its enquiry to 
the legally admissible evidence. 
On behalf of the Respondent it was pointed out that the question of 
constitutional validity of s.123(3) & (3A) is already settled by Jamuna 
H Prasad Mukhariya And Others v. Lachhi Ram And Others, [1955) 1 SCR 
DR. RAMESH YESHWANT PRABOO v. P.K KUNTE 
373 
608. It was also pointed ont that freedom of speech does not inclnde the A 
type of speeches given by Mr. Thac

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.