In Brief
This landmark judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which defines corrupt electoral practices. The central question was whether the word 'his' in the provision refers only to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate (and rival candidates), or also includes these characteristics of voters. By a majority (4:3), the Court held that 'his' refers to the candidate or rival candidate, not the voter. The Court emphasized purposive interpretation to maintain electoral purity and secularism. Justice Chandrachud's dissent argued for literal interpretation and strict construction of quasi-criminal provisions. The judgment extensively examined legislative history and constitutional principles underlying Section 123(3), ultimately affirming settled judicial precedent despite arguments for broader interpretation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.