SC: Won’t go into meaning of Hindutva

The Supreme Court clarified that it would not go into a larger debate on Hindutva’s meaning. The court said it would limit itself to examining if religion can be used to garner votes in elections. “We will not reconsider the 1995 judgment. We will also not examine Hindutva or religion at this stage. We will confine ourselves to the issue raised before us,” the court said.

The Supreme Court clarified that it is not going into the larger debate as to what is Hindutva or what is its meaning and it will confine the scope only whether religion can be used to garner votes in an election.

Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, heading a seven-judge bench, gave this clarification when counsel for social activist Teesta Setalvad and others sought impleadment in the ongoing proceedings and wanted the court to consider imposing a complete ban on seeking votes in the name of religion.

“We will not re-consider the 1995 judgment and also not examine Hindutva or religion at this stage. At this stage, we will confine ourselves to the issue raised before us in the reference. In the reference, there is no mention of the word ‘Hindutva’. If anybody will show that there is a reference to the word ‘Hindutva’, we will hear him. We will not go into Hindutva at this stage,” the bench said.

The bench is hearing the “1995 Hindutva case”, in which it was held that Hinduism is a way of life and there is no bar on expressing words like Hindutva or Hinduism or to have a Hindu state will not amount to seeking votes in the name of religion which is prohibited under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act.

Senior counsel Shaym Divan, appearing for Sunderlal Patwa, submitted that an appeal by a candidate to voters other than those who share his religion is not proscribed under law and the expression should be given a limited and restricted meaning. He said the court should not sanitise the poll process from all religious, caste issues as a healthy debate is necessary. He argued that the earlier line of judgments had stood the test of time, restricting the appeal for a candidate’s religion, for 55 years.

The CJI pointed out that seeking votes in the name of religion by a candidate or on his/her behalf may be a greater evil than seeking votes in the name of caste or language as religious appeal is bound to influence voters.