About the Author:
Asiya Rahman Puthuppurackal, a sophomore student pursuing BA LL.B at Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, is a member of the LJRF Centre for Constitutional Literacy.
“When their government was in power, they’d said that Muslims have the first right on the country’s assets. Should your hard-earned money be given to the infiltrators? It will be distributed among those who have more children.”
It doesn’t sound right, does it? An alluding innuendo? This is definitely and probably a thought crossing the minds of many. A question of legal accountability to coining such a statement by a person who holds one of the highest offices of the nation and actually heads the government, likely to affect the general public opinion at large, is inevitable.
Well, India awaits its polling results and let us not forget the Model Code of Conduct prescribed by the Election Commission of India constituted under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution.
- Courtesy: DNA INDIA
The Model Code of Conduct refers to a set of guidelines that are issued by the ECI for candidates and political parties during elections. The guidelines are chiefly regarding speeches, polling booths, polling day conduct, election manifestos, processions and conduct in general.
This code consists of a specific list of Do’s and Don’ts, on General Conduct, which specifically states:
UNDER DO’S:
- Criticism of other political parties and candidates should relate to their policies, programme, past record and work.
UNDER DONT’S:
- Caste/communal feelings of the electors shall not be appealed to.
- No activity, which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes, communities or religious or linguistic groups shall be attempted.
- Other parties or their workers shall not be criticized based on unverified allegations or on distortions.
- Courtesy: Livelaw
Two other provisions relevant to the context are Sections 123(3) and 123 (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, both of which amount to corrupt electoral practices.
Section 123 (3) stipulates appeals by a candidate, his agent or any other person with his consent during elections, to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or appeal to or use religious or national symbols for furtherance of prospects of the election, prejudicially affecting the election.
Section 123 (3A) denounces any attempt by a candidate to promote feelings of enmity or hatred among citizens on these grounds during elections.
In Abhiram Singh v C. D. Commachen (2017), popularly called the Electoral Appeals case, the 7-Judge Bench including CJI D. Y. Chandrachud held, appealing to the ascriptive identities of any candidate and that of the voters constitutes a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Reverting to the statement in the beginning, it was coined by the Indian Prime Minister during an election campaign in Rajasthan in April 2024.
The statement triggered a nation-wide controversy in the thick of elections, accusing the PM of instigating ‘political polarisation’ and ‘fuelling hatred, alluding the Muslim Community in his words’. Although it sounds a jibe against the opposition political party on the surface, in fact it was labelled as an apparent ‘hate speech’ hours after its video broke the internet, criticized of ‘fanning flames of religious antagonism’, as reported by The Hindu.
NOTE: A 2006 statement by Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was then Prime Minister was on making collective priorities clear, that agriculture, water resources, health, education, along with other programmes should be implemented for the upliftment of SC’s, ST’s, other backward classes, minorities, women and children which calls for devising innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly Muslims are also brought to the forefront of the society and given their deserving equitable shares.
Clearly, the objective of the above statement reflects the upliftment of the vulnerable sections of the society whereas the statement in question which combined the aforementioned with the Opposition Party’s manifesto addressing wealth inequality seems to have narrowed it down to a community alone, pejoratively.
The Election Commission of India was upbraided for its alleged initial inertia and silence on the statement and the later alleged ‘soft, slow response’ on the complaints received. The Delhi High Court had also recently dismissed a petition contending that the ECI was not initiating action against the PM for the same, stating that ‘the petition was misconceived and not of merit’.
We as legal fraternity, need not require a specific familiarisation with the quantum of impact that words can generate, especially inside the profession. The incident also echoes the crucial reminder of continuing the ideals ‘Fraternity’ and ‘Secularism’ enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution as a way of life. It is quintessential that we employ words wisely with caution, clearly reflecting fundamental constitutional tenets that shape the roots of the existence of the Indian Democracy, cultivate our democratic consciousness as others employ their words and be responsive of accountability.
As the saying goes, ‘Words have the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate, and to humble’.
Please note that LJRF VOICE is a platform endeavoring to provide legal knowledge and news to the best of its abilities. The information provided in this article does not, and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Instead, the content enumerated is for general, informative purposes only. This article contains links to third-party websites, solely for the convenience of the reader.
