Editorial #03

The Supreme  Court has grappled पकड़ना with the question whether   a provision प्रावधान in electoral चुनावी law that makes it  a corrupt practice to use religion, race, caste  or language as a ground for canvassing प्रचार votes in an election is a bar limited to the group to which candidates or their rivals belongs. or whether  it is a general prohibition निषेध on sectarian appeals. section 123(3) of the Representation of the people Act, 1951, as amended in 1961, gave rise to this doubt, by a four-three majority , a seven-member bench has ruled that it is a general prohibition on the use of religion or any other communal साम्प्रदायिक or sectarian value in the electoral arena अखाडा . the minority favored limiting the ambit सीमा of the subsection to cover only candidates who sought votes on such grounds, or the rivals hey wanted the votes not to back on similar grounds. that secularism धर्मनिरपेच is the bedrock आधार of our democracy is undisputed. that the electoral process ought not to permit appeals to the electorate on these narrow grounds is equally beyond doubt. against this backdrop पृष्ठभूमि  , it is only logical that the Supreme Court should decide that is a "corrupt practice" for candidates to use any caste or communal parameters to canvas for votes or to discredit a rival प्रतिद्वंदी , regardless बेपरवाह of weather the candidates themselves belong to such religious , communal of linguistic भाषाई group.

it is interesting that the dispute turned on a single pronoun.'his', that was introduced in the 1961 amendment संशोधन . the majority opinion favors  a ' purposive एकाग्र interpretation', holding that it covered the candidates as well as the voters. it finds support in legislative विधायी history and our constitutional ethos. the purpose of the amendment was to widen the scope of the particular corrupt practice. given that secularism is a basic feature सुविधा of the Constitution, it has  been interpreted व्यख्या in the light of Parliament's intention to prohibit any religious or sectarian appeal for votes. there is a justifiable तर्कसंगत worry that a wider interpretation may lead to eliminating नष्ट from the poll discourse प्रवचन  political issue that turn on religion, caste or language. after all, this is a country in which sections of society suffer deprivation and historical of injustice based on religious or caste identity . but the overall massage is clear . it is left to the wisdom of judges dealing with election cases to draw the line between what is permissible and what is not, and look at the context प्रसंग in which some statements are made before deciding whether they constitute a corrupt practice. the majority verdict will find resonance with all those who sweat by the primacy of secularism in the public domain. the minority view nuances this with a reminder that legal issues need to be seen in their social context.

VOCABULARY 

1. Grappled                       पकड़ना
2. Provision                       प्रावधान
3. Rlectoral                       चुनावी
4. Canvassing                    प्रचार
5. Prohibition                   निषेध
6. Communal                    साम्प्रदायिक
7. Arena                             अखाडा
8. Ambit                            सीमा
9. Secularism                    धर्मनिरपेच
10. Bedrock                        आधार
11. Backdrop                      पृष्ठभूमि
12. Rival                              प्रतिद्वंदी
13. Regardless                    बेपरवाह
14. Linguistic                      भाषाई
15. Amendment                  संशोधन
16. Purposive                      एकाग्र
17. Legislative                     विधायी
18. Aeature                          सुविधा
19. Interpreted                    व्यख्या
20. Justifiable                      तर्कसंगत
21. Eliminating                   नष्ट
22. Discourse                       प्रवचन
23. Context                          प्रसंग