"We will not go into the larger debate as to what is 'Hindutva' or what is its meaning. We will not re-consider the 1995 judgement and also not examine 'Hindutva' or religion at this stage," a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said.
The court, to which the issue has been referred by a five-judge bench, is examining the "scope and width" of section 123(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act which deals with electoral malpractices amounting to "corrupt practices", among other things.
Dealing with the reference, the bench said, "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'".
The remarks were made by the bench after senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for one O P Gupta who is seeking to intervene in the ongoing proceedings, said that he should also be heard if the bench is going into the question of Hindutva and seeking of votes on the basis of religion.
previous judgement, the seven-judge bench should examine the issue of 'Hindutva'.
To this, the CJI said that the bench would not hear the issue at this stage as nothing of this sort has been mentioned in the reference made to it by the five-judge bench.
During the hearing, the bench also observed, "the whole idea is that religion should be separated from politics."
The remarks came after senior counsel B A Desai, appearing for one of the respondents, told the bench that it has to interpret section 123 (3) of the RP Act.
"One can't say that I belong to a particular community so vote for me," he said.
Senior advocate Anoop George Chaudhary told the court that garnering votes in the name of religion would "directly affect the secular fabric of the country".
"No one should be allowed to make an appeal in the name of religion. Any such emotive appeal will take away independent choice of vote. That is why it has become a corrupt practice. Parties can get over this easily if everybody is asking for votes in the name of religion," he said.
"Any reference has to be a mix of facts and law. Here, the entire appeal has been referred to this bench," he said adding that the "plank of Hindutva, Hindu and Hinduism" are part of the reference and falls within the scope of section 123 (3) of the RP Act.
The arguments in the matter remained inconclusive and would continue tomorrow.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
