The debate around Hindutva and its place in India’s constitutional and cultural framework has remained one of the most discussed subjects in the country’s public discourse. While political narratives often interpret the term through electoral or ideological lenses, the Indian judiciary has also examined its meaning in the context of law, constitutional values, and democratic practice. A landmark moment in this discussion came with the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in the Dr. Ramesh Prabhoo vs Prabhakar Kunte case, where the court reflected on the meaning of “Hindutva” and “Hinduism” while interpreting provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Hindu Dharma is a way of life and not a religion. This is how the Supreme Court of India has defined the meaning of ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’ and the effect of the use of these expressions in the election speeches.
The judgment was delivered by Justice JS Verma on behalf of himself and Justices NP Singh and K. Venkatasami on December 11, 1995 in Dr Ramesh Prabhoo vs Prabhakar K. Kunte case. In this case, the court defined Hindutva broadly as a “way of life” or a cultural ethos of the Indian people, rather than a strict appeal to religion.
“Mere use of the word ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ or mention of any other religion in an election speech does not bring it within the net of sub-section (3) and or sub-section (3A) of Section 123, unless the further elements indicated are also present in that speech. ….”, as per the order.
The judgement of the Supreme Court had upheld contention urged by the appellants before it, belonging to Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) to the effect that an appeal to the voters to vote for Hindutva or Hinduism by itself doesn’t amount to an appeal to vote in the ground of religion which is a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
As per the section 123 (3) and (3A) of the RP Act, appeal by a candidate to vote or refrain from doing so on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language would be considered unlawful and that promotion of feelings of enmity between different classes of citizens on the above stated grounds would be considered corrupt.
The court has rejected the argument that the appeal to vote for Hindutva was an appeal on the ground of religion and has upheld the argument that it was an ideological appeal.
“It may be said straightaway that any speech wherein these expressions are used, irrespective of their meaning, cannot by itself fall under the ambit of sub-section (3) of Section 123, unless the speech can be construed as an appeal to vote for a candidate on the ground that he is Hindu or to refrain from voting for a candidate on the ground of his religion, i.e. he not being a Hindu. We have also indicated that mere reference to any religion in an election speech does not bring it within the net of sub-section (3) and / or sub-section (3A) of Section 123, since reference can be made to any religion in the context of secularism or to criticise any political party for practising discrimination against any religious group or generally for preservation of the Indian culture”, the court order said.
In his argument before the court, Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani had said that ‘dharma’ which is now called Hinduism or Hindutva was not a religion but a way of life which comprises a code of conduct to be observed by every individual in every sphere of personal and national activity. He said that it included respect and equal treatment to all religions. Its disregard was the root cause for the present degradation in moral values and has resulted in manifold problems. And therefore, appeal to vote for Hindutva can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as an appeal to vote on the ground of religion.
To opine on Hinduism, the bench relied on the works on Indian philosophy and Hinduism by India’s first Vice-President, S Radhakrishnan, and that of scholars-Toynbee and Monier Williams. “Normally any recognised religion or religious creed subscribes to a body of set philosophic concepts and theological beliefs but this doesn’t apply to the Hindu religion,” it said.
Monier Williams has observed that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism. “The Hindu religion is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not one people but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed at accommodating itself to circumstances and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than 3,000 years. It has first borne with and then, so to speak, swallowed, digested, and assimilated something from all creeds,” Monier says in ‘Religious Thought & Life’.
“In all the fleeting centuries of history”, says Dr S. Radhakrishnan, “in all the vicissitudes through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible. It has held fast to certain psychological traits which constitute its special heritage, and they will be the characteristic marks of the Indian people so long as they are privileged to have a separate existence. Like them, Hinduism takes it for granted that there are more than one valid approaches to truth and to salvation and that these different approaches are not only compatible with each other but are complementary.”
“The development of Hindu Dharma and philosophy shows that from time to time saints and religious reformers attempted to remove from the Hindu thought and practices elements from corruption and superstition and that led to the formation of sects. Budha started Buddhism; Mahavir founded Jainism; Basava became the founder of Lingayat religion; Jnaneshwar and Tukaram initiated the Varakari cult; Guru Nanak inspired Sikhism; Dayananda founded Arya Samaj and Chaitanya began Bhakti cult; and as a result of teachings of Ramakrishna andVivekananda, Hindu religion flowered into its most attractive, progressive and dynamic form. If we study the teachings of these saints and religious reformers, we would notice an amount of divergence in their respective views; but underneath that divergence, there is a kind of subtle indescribable unity which keeps them within the sweep of the broad and progressive Hindu religion.”
The bench said that it was somewhat remarkable that this broad sweep of Hindu Dharma has been eloquently described by Tonynbee. Says Toynbee in ‘The Present-Day Experiment in Western Civilisation’: “When we pass from the plane of social practice to the plane of intellectual outlook. Hinduism too comes out well by comparison with the religions and ideologies of the South-West Asian group. In contrast to these, Hinduism has the same outlook as the pre-Christian and pre-Muslim religions and philosophies of the Western half of the old world.
The Constitution-makers were fully conscious of this broad and comprehensive character of Hindu Dharma and so, while guaranteeing the fundamental right to freedom of religion, explanation II to Article 25 has made it clear that in sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
(The writer is a senior journalist and an independent commentator)