PRECARIOUSNESS OF

HARMONY
 INTRODUCTION

This case Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath

Kunte & Ors., was an appeal made by Dr. Ramesh Yeshwanth Prabhoo,
returned candidate from, Vile Parle Constituency to the Maharashtra
State Legislative Assembly, under section 116A of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951, against Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte And
Others in the Supreme Court of India. This was a 3 judge bench case
which includes Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice
N.P. Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami.
In this case the Bombay High Court had declared the Appellants, Dr
Ramesh Yeshwanth Prabhoo and Bal Thackeray, were found guilty of
corrupt practices under section 100 (1) (b) of the R.P. Act. They were
further found to be guilty of corrupt practices under 123(3) and 123(3A)
of the R.P. Act. This was because the Appellants appeal for votes
during their 3 public speeches at different places was purely based on
Prabhoo’s religion which arouse communal hatred between Hindu and
Muslim citizens of the country, thus harming the harmony of the society
and people.
The 3 speeches given by Bal Thackeray at different places and on
different days plays an important role. These were as follows:
1) Speech on 29.11.1987
“We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism. Therefore,
we do not care for the votes of Muslims. This country belongs to Hindus
and will remain so”
 2) Speech on 9.12.1987
“ Hinduism will triumph in this election and we must become hon’ble
recipients of this victory to ward off the danger on Hinduism, elect
Ramesh Prabhoo to join with Chhagan Bhujbal who is already there.
You will find Hindu temples underneath if all the mosques are dug out.
Anybody who stands against the Hindus should be showed or
worshipped with shoes. A candidate by name Pravhoo should be led to
victory in the name of religion.”
3) Speech on 10.12.1987
“We have gone with the ideology of Hinduism. Shiv Sena will
implement this ideology. Though this country belongs to Hindus, Ram
and Krishna are insulted.(They) valued the Muslim votes more than your
votes: we do not want the Muslim votes. A snake like Shahabuddin is
sitting in the Janata Party, man like Nihal Ahmed is also in Janata Party.
So the residents of Vile Parle should bury this party(Janata Party),"
The word ‘Hindutva’ used by Bal Thackeray in his speeches created a
lot of dilemma while giving the judgement for the above case.
 CASE ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court of India declared Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo

and Bal Thackeray to be guilty under section 123(3) and 123(3A) of
R.P. Act. The author feels that the courts decision was appropriate
because, the main dilemma in deciding this case judgement was based
on the actual meaning of the word ‘Hindutva’ which was used in the
public speeches given by Bal Thackeray in the presence of Mr. Ramesh
Prabhoo. The dilemma in it was whether the word ‘Hindutva’ referred to
the hindu religion or whether it referred to the Indian culture and their
lifestyle. So, in order to find out the actual meaning of it, judges looked
into the circumstances under which the speech was delivered and taking
the whole speech and situation into consideration. After considering all
these it was clearly visible that the ‘Hindutva’ word used in the speech
directly referred to the religion ‘Hindu’.
In the first speech “we do not care for votes of muslims” clearly shows
that they were referring to the religion hindu. In second speech “you will
find hindu temples underneath if all mosque are dug out” visibly tells us
their intention of upgrading hindu religion when compared to that
muslims. In th third one “Though this country belongs to Hindus, Ram
and Krishna are insulted” clearly shows us that they are referring to
religion ‘Hindu’ and not the Indian culture. So, the decision taken by the
judges is appropriate in this aspect.
The decision taken by the court completely confirms with the existing
law, that is section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the R.P. Act, without going
against or violating any other law under The Constitution of India. In
brief section 123(3) says that the appeal for vote by the candidate or the
election agent with the consent of the election agent or candidate, on the
grounds of religion, cast, creed, community or language is violative or is
considered a corrupt practice under the act. And according to section
123(3A) , creating a feeling of enmity among different classes of society
or communities on the grounds of religion, race, cast, creed, language, is
violative of the Act. The speeches given by the appellants did both the
acts which the section 123(3) and (3A) considers violative.
Though these sections becomes constitutionally invalid, when seen
taking, Article 19(1)(a) i.e. right to freedom of speech and expression,
into consideration; it becomes constitutionally valid when we consider
both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India as the
latter one imposes reasonable restriction on the former.
The reasoning in this case was consistent with the reasoning of similar
cases. At first the reasoning given in this case was that, the appellants
were held guilty because they appealed for votes in the name of religion
which was seen as a way of destroying or disturbing the secularism as
well as harmony of the people within the country. Likewise, in
Dr.M.Ismail Faruqui and Others etc. v. Union of India and Others etc.
case, or in general called “Ayodhya case”, ‘Secularism’ was given first
priority among all other issues. In the similar case of Ziyauddin Bukhari
v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehta & Ors, High court had rightly found the
appellant guilty of corrupt practices under section 123(2), 123(3),
123(3A) of the Act, as the appellants appealed votes in the name of
muslim religious person. Thus in many such cases, the reasoning given
matches with the present case. Hence, the judgement given in the present
case is right as per authors’ perspective.
The court’s reasoning was consistent with the existing laws and its
judgement was adequately justified with the reasoning. The main idea of
the laws and Constitution is to protect the Fundamental rights of the
people and to protect the preamble which constitutes the main idea for
framing the Constitution of India. One of the aspect in the preamble is to
protect the secularism of the country, which in one way can be seen as
preserving and maintaining the harmony among the citizens of the
country. In the speech given by the appellant had the word ‘Hindutva’
which had mainly two meanings. One symbolizing the ‘Indian culture
and the Indians lifestyle’ and the other meaning is representing ‘Hindu’
religion among all other diverse religion which existed in the country.
After analyzing the circumstances and the style in which the speech was
delivered , it could be clearly made out that the word ‘Hindutva’ used in
the speech clearly was reflecting the Hindu religion. This creates a
feeling of hatredness, enmity, disputes among different classes of
citizens of India within the society leading to creation of instability in
‘secularism’ of the country and thus bringing ‘harmony’ among people
of the country at the verge of precariousness. This is completely against
the idea of constitution and the preamble of the country. In order to
prevent it the decision or the judgement given by the Supreme Court of
India in this case is completely acceptable. The courts interpretation of
law was appropriate and did not violate any other existing laws.
 CONCLUSION

This case and the judgement given by the court for this case will have a
positive impact on the citizens of the country and the present society. It
will show the priority of the Constitution of India in securing secularism
as well as the harmony within this diverse country. It also shows that the
Constitution does not encourage or uphold any one religion, even though
the people of that religion constitute a majority population of the
country. Thus by protecting the secularism of the country by this
judgement, the court has prevented communal disputes, hate redness,
enmity among citizens , which could in turn result in humongous loss for
the country in terms of economy, peace of society, resources etc. On the
whole, the court has also preserved the harmony within the country.
Thus the author completely agrees with the judgement given for the
case.