New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated allusions to religion in his campaign speeches in the run up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections have raised questions on the violation of the Model Code of Conduct, which expressly bars appeals “to caste or communal feelings for securing votes”. It has turned the spotlight on the role of the Election Commission, as well as whether these speeches constitute “corrupt practices” under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 that deals with references to appeals on the ground of religion.
While Modi has been referring to his government’s role in the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, a longstanding promise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and accused the opposition Congress of opposing this temple, the appeal to the Hindus was taken a step further on Friday (April 12).
At a rally in Jammu and Kashmir’s Udhampur, he accused the opposition of hurting the sentiments of the majority community by eating non-vegetarian food during Navratri.
“Congress and the INDI gathbandhan are not bothered about the sentiments of the majority of the people in the country. They have fun playing with the sentiments of the people. During Saawan, someone who is out on bail, someone who has been punished by court, they have gone to such a person’s house during the month of Saawan, and had fun while cooking mutton. Not just this, they have made a video as well to ridicule the people of the country,” he said in Hindi.
The use of religion in election speeches is not new in India, and neither is it new for Modi or the BJP. The Ram Temple has been a poll plank for decades and its construction a culmination of a long drawn political project by the Sangh parivar.
But whether a speech is communal or not comes down to the judgment of the Election Commission, and it is here that the poll body’s role has been seen as wanting.
‘Ridiculing people of country during Saawan’
During his speech on Friday in Udhampur, Modi compared opposition leaders with Mughals for eating non-vegetarian food to ridicule people and “strengthen their vote bank”.
“Law does not stop anyone from eating anything and neither does Modi. Everyone has the independence to eat either veg or non-veg,” he said.
“But these people’s intentions are something else. When Mughals would attack, they would not be satisfied by defeating a ruler. Until and unless they destroyed mandirs and other places of worship they would not be satisfied. They would have fun in that. Similarly during the month of Saawan, by showing a video, they are showing the mentality of the Mughal era and ridiculing the people of the country and strengthening their vote bank,” he continued.
“Who are you trying to ridicule? During the days of Navaratra eating non veg and making a video to hurt people’s sentiments, who are they trying to please? I know that as I am saying this today, these people will attack with abuses, with gola, barud (ammunition). They will come after me. But when things go out of hand it is my responsibility in a democracy to show the right perspective to the country and I am fulfilling my duty. They are doing this knowingly so that a big section gets ridiculed by this video. The problem is that moving from appeasement, this is their Mughaliya mentality. But these people don’t know that when people give their answer, the princes of big families are dethroned.”
Scope of the Model Code of Conduct
While the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) – a set of guidelines by the Election Commission of India for political parties and candidates – lays down standards of conduct during polling and campaigning. It is not a statutory document that can attract penal provisions.
Elections in India are regulated under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 deems as a “corrupt practice”, the appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the grounds of his religion, race, caste, community, or language or the use of, or appeal to, religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate.
Further, Section 123 (3A) also states that the promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, is a corrupt practice.
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 2017 in the Abhiram Singh vs CD Commachen case held by a 4:3 majority that appealing to the ascriptive identities of any candidate as well as the voters constitutes a “corrupt practice” under Section 123(3).
Further, any wrong committed during an election can be challenged in court after the elections, through an election petition under Section 100 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
‘Innuendos fall within ambit of rules’
According to Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate in the Supreme Court, while the judgment lies with the Election Commission to decide whether a speech is violating the model code, innuendos also fall within the poll body’s ambit of rules.
“It is the judgment of the Election Commission whether a speech is in the nature of an appeal to religion or not. If the Election Commission does not take action, then the only remedy is under the Representation of the Peoples Act, after the election is over when an election petition can be moved, for disqualifying a candidate on that ground-if the defeated candidate feels that such appeals materially affected the outcome of the election,” he said to The Wire.
“The Election Commission would be well within its power to say that innuendos also fall within the ambit of the rules. Even under general law of defamation for instance, an innuendo can come under mischief of the section. Similarly where there is an appeal saying these people do not follow Hindu beliefs it can come as an appeal to religion.”
Hegde added that the intention behind the act also needs to be looked at.
“Even by saying that the opposition opposed Ram Temple or that we moved Ram Lalla to a magnificent temple, they are not necessarily only statements of achievements but direct appeals to the religious feelings of the majority. It can be construed to fall under the model code of conduct. If you interpret it strictly then it may be that it is an appeal to religious sentiments. But if you construe it in terms of the intent of the act and the model code that there should be no appeal to religious sentiments, and the Election Commission would so decide that I doubt that a court would intervene.”
Invoking Ram Temple
Through the election campaign, Modi has invoked the Ram Temple in his speeches. For instance, at a rally in Uttar Pradesh’s Pilibhit, on April 9, Modi accused the Congress of “insulting” Ram Lalla.
“INDI alliance parties have always hated the construction of the Ram Temple and continue to hate it. To stop the construction of the Mandir you did what you could in courts. But when the people of the country contributed to the construction of the mandir, and when those associated with the construction of the mandir forgave all your sins and invited you to the Pran Pratishtha invited you with respect, they rejected Ram temple ‘Pran Pratishtha’ invite and insulted Ram Lalla,” he said.
Further, he also likened the Congress manifesto with that of the Muslim League’s in pre-independent India in the same speech.
“Congress manifesto appears to be that not of Congress but that of Muslim League. Under the pressure of appeasement, whether it is Congress or SP (Samajwadi party) they are also protesting against CAA. If BJP is giving citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs who have fled after facing persecution, if India will not give citizenship, will someone else give?”
At another rally in Bihar’s Nawada on April 7, Modi once again referred to the construction of the Ram Temple, calling on the people to not forget those who committed such sins.
“Modi had guaranteed that a grand temple of Ram Lalla will be built in Ayodhya and today the peak of the grand Ram temple is touching the sky. The attempts to stop the construction of the Ram Temple were made by the Congress and RJD. Today the Ram Temple has been built. People of the country contributed to the Ram Temple through donations. It has not been built by sarkari tijori (government’s finances) but by contributions from the public.
“What enmity do they have with the people of the country, with Prabhu Ram, that after the Ram Temple was built they refused to attend the Pran Pratishtha ceremony. Their hearts are filled with so much hatred that those from their party who attended the ceremony were expelled for six years. Ram Navami is coming. Don’t forget these people who committed these sins. If Modi’s guarantees continue like this, their vote bank shops will also shut down.”
The Congress has complained to the Election Commission on his remark likening its manifesto to that of the Muslim League but no action has been taken yet.
Last year during the Karnataka assembly elections, Modi’s direct appeal to religion by asking voters to chant “Jai Bajrang Bali” also saw no action by the Election Commission, despite a complaint being lodged against it.
Last week, district authorities in Meerut, however, have sent a notice to BJP candidate Arun Govil, who had played Lord Ram on television, for using the deity’s images in his campaigns.
Election Commission’s judgment
According to former chief election commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy, the MCC is to ensure a level playing field.
“The purpose of the Model Code of Conduct is to ensure a level playing field and that there is no undue influence. So long as a speech is not affecting the level playing field or appealing to votes on the basis of a particular caste, creed or religion there may not be a case for any action,” he said to The Wire.
“If there is undue influence, it cannot be judged under the model code of conduct but rather under the IPC (Indian Penal Code, now Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita) or the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. The facts will have to be examined and a decision will be taken on the basis of that. Do these statements result in undue influence is something courts will have to decide but straight away a claim of a violation can be made only after looking at more facts.”
In 1987, Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray was barred from contesting elections and disenfranchised for six years by the Election Commission for asking Hindus to vote for Hindus.
The Election Commission in the Modi years has been accused by the opposition of turning a blind eye to Modi’s speeches. In August 2020, election commissioner Ashok Lavasa resigned a year after he became the only member of the three-member Election Commission to rule that Modi had violated the MCC while campaigning for the 2019 general election.
