Supreme Court revisits 21-year-old verdict on Hindutva ahead of crucial elections
In 1995, the apex court had defined Hindutva as ‘a way of life’, which gave the BJP and the Shiv Sena considerable legal ground to justify their ultra-nationalist politics.
HIGHLIGHTS
With Assembly elections in four states round the corner and controversies raging over cow vigilantism, triple talaq and uniform civil code, the Supreme Court is all set to revisit its two-decade old interpretation of the term Hindutva.
In 1995, the apex court had defined Hindutva as ‘a way of life’, which gave the BJP and the Shiv Sena considerable legal ground to justify their ultra-nationalist politics. Now, as the Supreme Court continues its hearing on triple talaq row, a seven-judge-bench would re-examine what the three-judge bench said 21 years ago.
HINDUTVA AND COURT JUDGMENTS
Though the 1995 judgment penned by then Chief Justice JS Verma had turned into a milestone, there have been seven court verdicts examining Hindutva or Hinduism. The apex court held that seeking votes in the name of Hinduism was not a “corrupt practice” according to the Representation of People Act (RPA)+++(5)+++.
In 1990, Manohar Joshi of the Shiv Sena defeated Bhaurao Patil of the Congress in Maharashtra. Patil challenged Joshi’s election on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123 of RPA. The section prohibits attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred among communities on the grounds of religion, caste etc for electoral gains.
The Bombay High Court set aside the election of Manohar Joshi and some other candidates of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance relying on the provision of the RPA. But, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s verdict giving a different explanation to the words Hindutva and Hinduism, which were not to be necessarily understood within the confines of Hindu religion.
EARLIER JUDGMENTS
While delivering the verdict, the three-judge-bench cited two previous judgments of the apex court. The first judgement was given by a five-judge bench in the Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others vs Muldas Bhudarda Vaishya case in 1966. In this case the court held that Hinduism was no religion but a way of life+++(5)+++.
This view of the apex court was reiterated in the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras and Others vs Late R Sridharan case 10 years later in 1976. The Supreme Court’s proposition was that Hinduism symbolised culture and not religious practices.+++(5)+++
THE 1995 JUDGMENT
Delivering the judgment in the Manohar Joshi case, Justice JS Verma wrote in conclusion, “It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on Hindu religion as opposed to other religions?”
“…these words (Hindutva and Hinduism) are used in a speech to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian cultural ethos,” the bench said.
BJP’s HINDUTVA
As soon as the Supreme Court defined Hindutva and permitted its use in elections, the BJP found an alibi to justify its Ram temple demand. While the apex court did not indicate that Hindutva includes Islam or other religious beliefs, the BJP tried to project it as an umbrella term for Indian culture and ethos.
However, the real meaning of Hindutva for the BJP becomes clear by visiting their website, which defines it as “the greatest nationalist ideology”.
“Hindutva is here to stay. It is up to the Muslims whether they will be included in the new nationalistic spirit of Bharat. It is up to the government and the Muslim leadership whether they wish to increase Hindu furore or work with the Hindu leadership to show that Muslims and the government will consider Hindu sentiments,” reads the official write-up on the BJP’s website. (http://www.bjp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=369:hindutva-the-great-nationalist-ideology&Itemid=501)
POLITICAL HINDUTVA
As a political tool, the basic tenets of the BJP’s Hindutva include building Ram temple at Ayodhya, a complete ban on cow slaughter, doing away with personal laws by formulating a uniform civil code, and ending special status of Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution.
When the BJP was in power at the Centre between 1998-2004, these demands were raised but were not on the agenda of the Vajpayee government. Now, when the BJP has a majority of its own in the Lok Sabha, the core agenda is back in business. Hindutva is no longer an unparliametary word in politics, but this may change after Tuesday, when the Supreme Court re-examines the principle set way back in 1966.
WHY NOW?
A revisit of the Hindutva judgment by the Supreme Court was long overdue. Only four months after Justice Verma’s verdict, another three-judge bench of the court found the need to revisit the judgment.
Adjudicating in the Abhiram Singh Vs CD Commachen case in 1995, the second Supreme Court bench suggested that it would be appropriate if a five-judge bench examined the use of Hindutva when allegations of corrupt practices are levelled.
A five-judge bench was constituted and when it was hearing this matter, the court was told about another case under Section 123 of the RPA involving BJP leader Sunderlal Patwa. The bench had then referred the matter to a seven-judge bench, which was constituted recently.
Chief Justice TS Thakur heads the bench, which is scheduled to revisit the 1995 judgment within the ambit of Section 123 of the RPA. Other judges on the bench are Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit and MB Lokur.