The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday over a plea to cancel the symbol and name allotted to political parties which are using religion or carrying religious connotations in their symbols.
The plea filed by Syed Waseem Rizvi, through advocate Abhikalp Pratap Singh, said the petition deals with the Representation of People’s Act (RPA) 1951 and the Constitution. It also discusses how constitutional values are integral to the RPA and are made clear in sections 29A, 123 (3), and 123 (3A) of the Act.
According to the argument, section 123 of the RPA expressly forbids using religion to influence voters, citing the Constitution’s secular norms.
“The people must vote on the basis of anything except religion. If a candidate is elected on the basis of religious symbol/ name, then the whole purpose of enacting sub-clause (3) of Section 123 of RPA would cease to exist”, said the plea.
According to the argument, the Supreme Court has accorded secularism and its effects on the social fabric of the country the utmost importance. “Therefore, by allowing the usage of religious symbols/ names by the political parties, the Election Commission of India is defying the mandate of the Constitution,” added the plea.
BJP spokesperson and senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, submitted before a panel of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, that two recognised state parties have the word “Muslim” in their names and that some parties have crescent moons and stars on their official flags. He also questioned whether political parties could have names with a religious connotation.
Bhatia cited the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a party with representatives in the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, and the Kerala Legislative Assembly, as an example. He added, “This violates Model Code of Conduct. We need to see, can we pollute the politics?”
Bhatia argued that this court had determined that secularism is a fundamental characteristic based on the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India.
The bench questioned whether the ban would apply to political parties in light of Section 123 of the RPA, which only mentions candidates. To which Bhatia replied saying that a candidate from a party with a religious name who runs for office will be breaking both the RPA and secularism.
Following the hearing of the arguments in the case, the bench sent notice to the secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice and the ECI, due back on October 18, and asked the petitioner’s counsel to implead concerned political parties in the matter.
Related
