Case Summary: Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen
Case Summary: Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) By Lrs.
Citation: (2017) 01 SC CK 0094; (2017) 2 SCC 629; AIR 2017 SC 401
Date of Judgment: January 2, 2017
Bench: T.S. Thakur, CJ; Adarsh Kumar Goel, J; Uday Umesh Lalit, J; Madan B. Lokur, J; L. Nageswara Rao, J; S.A. Bobde, J; Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J
Court: Supreme Court of India (Full Bench)
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=1048352
Background of the Case
This case deals with the interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding electoral corrupt practices. The issue was whether a candidate’s appeal to religion, race, caste, community, or language of the voter, not just the candidate, constitutes a corrupt practice. The matter was referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench due to conflicting decisions in earlier rulings.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether an appeal to vote or refrain from voting based on the religion, caste, race, or language of the voter violates Section 123(3).
2. Whether the word “his” in Section 123(3) restricts the corrupt practice to the candidate’s own religion or includes that of the voter.
3. Whether appeals to identity-based considerations are constitutionally permissible in a secular democracy.
Ratio Decidendi
The majority held that Section 123(3) prohibits any appeal to religion, caste, race, community, or language – whether of the candidate, voter, or anyone else – for votes. The Court ruled that the word “his” must be read broadly to uphold the secular ethos of the Constitution and prevent divisive electoral practices.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court interpreted Section 123(3) broadly to bar identity-based appeals to the electorate. The Court allowed the appeal and disqualified the elected candidate. It emphasized that elections must remain secular and not be vitiated by religious or communal appeals.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
- Background and referral history: ¶1–4
- Judicial precedent and conflicting views: ¶5–11
- Constitutional interpretation of Section 123(3): ¶12–25
- Majority view reasoning: ¶26–36
- Final ruling and conclusions: ¶37–41