Source:thewire.in<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am a Bhopal-based journalist with impeccable secular credentials and with a deep sense of moral obligation I have just filed an election petition in the Madhya Pradesh high court challenging Pragya Singh Thakur\u2019s election from the Bhopal parliamentary seat.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To me, her victory is a huge national\n shame. No country in the world, not even Pakistan, has ever elected a \nperson being prosecuted for a heinous act of terrorism to its \nparliament. It would have been worse had the BJP Member of Parliament\u2019s \nelection gone unchallenged in a court of law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
None of Bhopal\u2019s over 12 lakh voters \nhas seen fit to challenge her election. Surprisingly, even the defeated \nCongress candidate and two-time chief minister Digvijay Singh shied away\n from availing this routine legal recourse. Of the 19 election petitions\n filed against victorious BJP candidates in the Madhya Pradesh high \ncourt, 17 have the defeated Congress candidates as petitioners. Only in \ntwo seats \u2013 Bhopal and Satna \u2013 ordinary voters are petitioners. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
I am inclined to believe that \nDigvijay Singh chose to let go his crushing defeat by over 3.64 lakh \nvotes uncontested because he lacked moral conviction. His own campaign, \nmarked by the bizarre antics of assorted sadhus, was steeped in the \npublic display of religious rituals \u2013 the very terrain on which his BJP \nopponent turned out to be more brazen than him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was a self-styled Computer Baba who presided over mass yagna<\/em>s by hundreds of sadhus at a playground for the Congress candidate\u2019s victory. Another sadhu, who goes by the name of Mirchi Baba, vowed to take samadhi<\/em> if Digvijay Singh didn\u2019t win.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n All through the campaign, Digvijay Singh belaboured the point that he is a devout Hindu who keeps regular fasts, does elaborate puja, and visits temples and has been been unfairly portrayed as \u201canti-Hindu\u201d. The Congress candidate consciously muted his attacks on the RSS and Pragya Singh Thakur. His uncharacteristic mellowness was explained away by Singh\u2019s campaign managers as a strategy to avert polarisation of voters on religious grounds.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, liberals, including me, \nwhole-heartedly supported Digvijay Singh but the religious flavour he \ngave his campaign rankled with us. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When some well-meaning friends \nsuggested the senior Congress leader file an election petition, he \nreportedly refused, sighing \u201cwhat is the point now?\u201d But I saw the point\n in doing what Digvijay Singh was supposed to do but didn\u2019t. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The opportunity to become petitioner against the Bhopal MP\u2019s election came my way by sheer chance. Noted activist Harsh Mander and his team had prepared a petition against Pragya Thakur\u2019s election and were looking for a Bhopal voter to file it in the high court.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n A common friend called to ask if I could rush to Jabalpur to file the\n petition. I instantly agreed as it afforded me an opportunity to be a \npart of the Mander\u2019s multi-dimensional fight against communalism, the \noppression of the poor and the hypocrisy of the elite in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although I barely know Harsh Mander personally, I have closely \nfollowed his stupendous initiatives towards creating an egalitarian \nsociety from the days he was an Indian Administrative officer (IAS) in \nMadhya Pradesh till 1999, when he took early retirement and became an \nactivist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Utkarsh Mishra, a young lawyer from Harsh Mander\u2019s team called me and we arranged to meet in Jabalpur on July 8, the last day for filing election petitions<\/p>\n\n\n\n All through the train journey from Bhopal to Jabalpur, memories of the toxic campaign in Bhopal kept flooding my mind. The feelings were mixed \u2013 indignation at the sheer audacity of the BJP in fielding a terror accused facing charges of killing seven innocent Muslims in Malegaon over a decade ago, and satisfaction over the prospects of being able to challenge her election in court.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n It hurt as I recalled that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi\u2019s strong rebuff of the so-called Sadhvi didn\u2019t translate into action against her. Modi had said in an election speech that he could never forgive Pragya Singh for calling Mahatma Gandhi\u2019s assassin a patriot. The BJP subsequently issued her a show cause notice. She is believed to have replied to the notice but nobody knows to whom and when. Not surprisingly, she remains unscathed and remorseless.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the BJP had announced her candidature, we all genuinely believed that she stood no chance against Digvijay Singh. We were confident that notwithstanding the so-called Modi wave sweeping across the country, at least Bhopal would not be so overwhelmed by the nationalism rhetoric as to elect a terror accused who viciously valorised Nathuram Godse and credited her curse for the tragic martyrdom of the 26\/11Mumbai blast hero Hemant Karkare. The shock over her victory flashed back and endured through the journey.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n At Jabalpur, Utkarsh and I met at \nlawyer Arvind Shrivastava\u2019s chamber in the Madhya Pradesh high court. \nComrade Arvind is the state secretary of the Communist Party of India. \nWe went through the voluminous documents which were to be part of the \nelection petition. I signed on each page of the petition and supporting \ndocuments which ran in to several hundreds of pages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Arvind sounded confident that we have very solid grounds to ensure that Pragya Thakur\u2019s election will be set aside. His confidence seemed to stem more from the genuine conviction of a conscientious citizen than the habit of a lawyer used to assuring clients. \u201cIt appears an open and shut case\u201d, a beaming Arvind said. Utkarsh appeared pleased but I remained a little sceptical, given the fact that judicial processes in deciding election petitions are tortuously slow in India.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petition seeks directions that \nthe result of the election for the Bhopal constituency declared on May \n23, 2019 be set aside and the returned candidate (Pragya Thakur) be held\n guilty for having committed the corrupt practices of appealing for \nvotes on religious grounds and\/or undue influence within the meaning of \nSection 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 and making \nfalse statements about her rival candidates, defined as a corrupt \npractice within section 123(4) of the act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The petition has been filed in \nlight of the undue influence exercised by the candidate over the voters \nof the Bhopal constituency, by appealing for votes on the grounds of \nreligion, aggravating existing communal tensions and creating enmity \nbetween different religions as well as making false statements about her\n rival candidates, reasonably calculated to prejudice their prospects in\n the Lok Sabha elections. All of these acts are defined as corrupt \npractices under Sections 123(3) and (4) of the act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Grounds under section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The ambit of Section 123 (3) has been\n greatly expanded over the years by the Supreme Court to include even a \nsingle appeal made on the basis of religion of the voters. The following\n statements made by the Pragya Thakur have been alleged as appeal for \nvotes on religious grounds and\/or attempts to promote enmity between \nreligious groups in relation with the elections which which constitutes \nan electoral offence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1) On April\u00a018<\/strong>, she said: \u201cI am not contesting elections. I am a sanyasi<\/em>; Power is not for me. I can be a marghdarkshak<\/em>, I can do the work of state power, But this is a dharmyudh<\/em>. I had to come to this dharmyudh<\/em>. I am here considering it as the order of god. I am not here to do netagiri<\/em>.; I have been instructed by the god to take part in this dharmyudh<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2) April 19<\/strong>: \u201cThe investigation team called Hemant Karkare to Mumbai and said if you do not have evidence, let her go. He said I will do anything to\u00a0get evidence against her. I won\u2019t let her go. This was his stubbornness. He was traitor. He was anti-religion\u2026You won\u2019t believe but I said you will be destroyed\u2026After just over a month, the terrorists killed him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3) April 20<\/strong>: \u201cRam Mandir hum banayenge, evam bhavya banayenge. Hum todne gaye the dhancha, maine chadhkar toda tha dhancha iss par mujhe garv hai. Mujhe Ishwar ne shakti di thi, humne desh ka kalank mitaya hai.\u201d <\/em>(\u201cWe will build a Ram temple [at Ayodhya] and build a grand one. We had gone to demolish the [Babri] structure, I am proud that I climbed the structure and demolished it. God gave me power and we removed a blot on the nation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n April 20<\/strong>: \u201cI am, in fact, proud of it. There were some waste products at the Ram temple and we removed it.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSee what they have done to the country in 70 years. Even\n our temples are not safe. The Hindus awakened their self-respect by \ndemolishing the structure and we will construct a grand Ram temple\u201d and \n\u201cYes, I had gone there (Ayodhya), I had said it yesterday too, not \ndenying it. I had demolished the structure. I will go there and help in \nthe construction of Ram temple, nobody can stop us from doing that, Ram rashtra hain, rashtra Ram hai <\/em>[Ram is the nation, the nation is Ram].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5) May 5<\/strong>: \u201cPeople \nwill take revenge for insulting the women, they will take the revenge of\n equating our religion with terrorism. The mistake that you have made \nfour months back should not be repeated now,\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is clear that the abovementioned \nstatements fall prima facie under the ambit of corrupt practices as \ndefined under Section 123 (3), of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951\n which states as follows: <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n [(3) The appeal by a candidate or his \nagent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his \nelection agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the \nground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use \nof, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, national\n symbols, such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the \nfurtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for \nprejudicially affecting the election of any candidate: [Provided that no\n symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a \nreligious symbol or a national symbol for the purposes of this clause.]<\/em><\/p> (3A) The promotion of, or attempt \nto promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of \nthe citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or\n language, by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the \nconsent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the \nprospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially \naffecting the election of any candidate.]<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n There is extensive judicial precedent\n from the Supreme Court expanding the ambit of Section 123 (3) to \ninclude even a single appeal for votes on the basis of the religion of\n the voters and candidates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2017, the Supreme Court in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen<\/em>\n held that that religion and caste of the voter or rival candidate \ncannot be used to unduly influence anyone while making any statement \nduring electioneering or otherwise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A relevant extract of the 2017 judgment is as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c\u2026the purpose of enacting section 123 (3) and amending it more \nthan once during the course of the first 10 years of its enactment \nindicates the seriousness with which the parliament grappled with the \nnecessity of curbing communalism, separatist and fissiparous tendencies \nduring an election campaign ( and even otherwise in view of the \namendment of section 153 \u2013A IPC. It is during electioneering that a \ncandidate goes virtually all out to seek votes from the electorate and \nparliament felt it necessary to put some fetters on the language that \nmight be used so that the democratic process is not derailed but \nstrengthened. Taking all this into consideration, parliament felt the \nneed to place a strong check on corrupt practices based on appeal on \ngrounds of religion during election campaigns (and even otherwise).<\/em> Concerns which formed the ground \nfor amending Section 123 (3) of the act have increased with the \ntremendous reach already available to a candidate through the print and \nelectronic media , and now with access to millions through the internet \nand social media as well as mobile phone technology none of which were \nseriously contemplated till about fifteen years ago. Therefore now, more\n than ever it is necessary to ensure that the provisions of Section \n123(3) of the act are not exploited by a candidate or anyone on his or \nher behalf by making an appeal on the ground of religion with a \npossibility of disturbing the even tempo of life\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The grounds of our petition also \nstate that Pragya Thakur\u2019s comments regarding Hemant Karkare, the Ram \nMandir and Babri Masjid are a clear attempt to not only appeal to \nmajoritarian Hindu sentiments but also foster enmity between different \nreligions, in relation to the elections by referring to the polarising \nissue of the Ram Mandir and describing \u2018the structure\u2019 (i.e. the Babri \nMasjid) as a \u2018blot on the nation\u2019 and \u2018waste products\u2019. These are \ndefined as electoral offences and corrupt practices in the ambit of \nsection 123 (3A) of the Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Other senior BJP leaders also assisted Pragya Thakur\u00a0in committing the corrupt practice of seeking votes on religious grounds on her behalf, by openly admitting to fielding her for a Lok Sabha Seat in Bhopal on the sole grounds of giving an answer to those who have allegedly defamed Hindu civilisation by associating it with terrorism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an interview to the news network Times Now<\/em> on April 19, 2019, Modi said that the ticket to Pragya Thakur was an answer to those who had equated a 5,000-year-old civilisation with terrorism. He said as follows: \u201cThey defamed a 5,000-year-old culture that believes in vasudhaiv kutumbakam<\/em>. They called them terrorists. To answer them all, this is a symbol and it will cost Congress.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n On May 17, 2019, BJP president Amit Shah, said,\u00a0<\/em>\u201cPragya Thakur\u2019s candidature is a satyagraha<\/em> against fake charges of saffron terror\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey have fabricated false cases to frame her. It was a conspiracy for vote bank politics. The courts have said that saffron terror is an imaginary concept\u201d .<\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath on April 20, 2019\u00a0also stated\u00a0that\u201dBJP has made Sadhvi Pragya a candidate because the charges of Hindu terror were fake and for demeaning the religion before the world, Congress must apologise.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis,\u00a0on May 6, 2019, said, \u201cPragya Thakur\u2019s candidature is a reply to [those] who termed Hindus as terrorists for their own vote bank politics.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n BJP general secretary, Ram Madhav on April 18, 2019 said that \u201cshe [Pragya Thakur] is probably the right challenger for a person like Digvijay Singh who is largely responsible for propagating the dubious and mischievous idea of Hindu terror in this country. He needs a proper challenge that is why Pragya Thakur was fielded by the party.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The above statements are clear \nadmissions by the prime minister of the country, the BJP president, the \nMaharashtra and Uttar Pradesh chief ministers and the BJP general \nsecretary that candidates such as Pragya Thakur can be given Lok Sabha \ntickets on solely religious considerations. The projection of the \nreturned candidate before the religious majority of the country as a Lok\n Sabha candidate intended to preserve the integrity of Hindu \ncivilisation is itself a direct appeal to vote for the returned \ncandidate and the BJP in Bhopal on religious considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grounds under Section 123 (4)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On April 25, 2019, Pragya Thakur, in \nreference to Digvijay Singh said that \u201cto vanquish such a terrorist, to \nagain deal with such people who have increased unemployment, a priestess has had to stand up.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Terming Digvijay Singh a \nterrorist is prima facie a false statement as defined under Section \n123(4) of the Act, that has been reasonably calculated to prejudice the \nprospects of Singh\u2019s election. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The above mentioned statement is prima facie a corrupt practice as defined under section 123 (4) of the Act as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c(4) The publication by a \ncandidate or his agent or by any other person [with the consent of a \ncandidate or his election agent], of any statement of fact which is \nfalse, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to \nbe true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any \ncandidate or in relation<\/em> I don\u2019t know when the petition will \nbe taken up, if at all. Its fate is also uncertain. But the satisfaction\n of having stood up against Pragya Singh will remain with me forever. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/em>to the candidature, or \nwithdrawal, of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to\n prejudice the prospects of that candidate\u2019s election\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n