The Judgement

♤ The judgment was handed out as an interpretation of Section 123(3) of RPA, 1951.

♤ The bench was interpreting the word “his” in section 123(3) in RPA, 1951.

o The majority believed that “his” here refers to the any candidate or his agent or any other person making the appeal with the consent of the candidate or the elector. To justify this interpretation, the bench took cues from various amendments of RPA.

o It also said that to maintain the “purity” of the electoral process; certain arguments

such as religion, caste and language must be taken off the table.

o The dissenting judges on other the hand believed that Section 123(3) of the RPA does not require such a broad interpretation and the word “his” does not include the elector/voter.

o The dissenting judges remarked that markers such as religion are deeply rooted in the structure of the Indian society.