Akriti Kumari, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
This article intends to show the relevance of the Ziauddin Bukhari v Brijmohan Mehra (Bukhari case)1 concerning Section 123(3), Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA). Politicians over the years during their election speeches, including Amit Shah recently in Assam2, have made comments and remarks which had obvious religious connotations. In India, there exists a one-of-a-kind provision that calls such speeches corrupt thereby making the election void then the question remains how have these politicians escaped without any consequences? Section 123(3) has gone through different changes over the years through various amendments and judicial clarifications. The Bukhari case particularly is a hidden gem that has been misinterpreted, neglected, and forgotten.
This article will talk about what the Bukhari case laid out and how the subsequent cases dealing with the same provision missed the essential point being made by the court in the case. Furthermore, the article will also show how by not following the interpretation laid out by the court, the entire purpose of the section has been lost.
Comments