The BJP's election manifesto says: "The BJP is committed to facilitate the construction of a magnificent Shri Ram Mandir at Ram Janmasthan in Ayodhya where a makeshift temple already exists. Shri Ram lies at the core of Indian consciousness. The BJP will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.
This raises serious questions of law. May be the draftsmen's attention was not drawn to the judgement of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai's case. Upholding dissolution of the Legislative Assemblies in UP, MP, Rajasthan and HP following the demolition of the Babari Masjid in December 1992, the Court spelt out the implications of secularism which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The Court considered the party's manifesto for the mid-term poll to Lok Sabha in May 1991 which said: "BJP firmly believes that construction of Shri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan is a symbol of the vindication of our cultural heritage and national self respect. For BJP it is purely a national issue and it will not allow any vested interests to give it a sectarian and communal colour. Hence party is committed to build Shri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan by relocating the Babari structure with due respect"
The Union Government justified dissolution of the Assemblies pointing out that the very manifesto and programme of action of the party was such as to hurt the religious feelings of the Muslim community. The disputed structure had become the bone of contention between two religious communities. The process which resulted in the demolition and the manner in which it was perpetrated, dealt a serious blow to the communal harmony and peace in the country. It was absolutely necessary to recreate the feeling of security among the Muslims. It was not possible with the BJP governments in power. They had to go.
The Court accepted this argument and observed: "The communal situation was tense. It could explode anywhere at any time. On the material placed before us, including the reports of the Governors, we cannot say that the President had no relevant material before him on the basis of which he could form the satisfaction that the BJP governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh cannot dissociate themselves from the action and its consequences and that these governments, controlled by one and the same party, whose leading lights were actively campaigning for the demolition of the disputed structure, cannot be dissociated from the acts and deeds of the leaders of the BJP".
On the questions of political parties raising communal issues, Justice K. Ramaswamy declared: "Political parties, with a view to come to political power, should abide by the Constitution and the laws. They should not mix religion with politics. The manifesto of a political party should be consistent with these fundamental and basic features of the Constitution, secularism, fraternity, unity and national integrity:
"Introducing of religion into politics is not merely a negation of the constitutional mandate but also a positive violation of the constitutional obligation, duty, responsibility and positive prescription of prohibition specifically enjoined by the Constitution and the R.P. Act." Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy held: "If the Constitution requires the state to be secular in thought and action, the same requirement attaches to political parties too. The Constitution does not recognise, it does not permit, mixing religion and State power. Both must be kept apart.
"Introducing religion into politics is to introduce an impermissible element into the body politic and an imbalance in our constitutional system. If a political party espousing a particular religion comes to power that religion tends to become, in practice, the official religion. All other religions come to acquire a secondary status. This would be plainly antithetical to Articles 14 to 16 and 25. Under our Constitution, no party or organisation can simultaneously be a political and a religious party. It has to be either. The same would be the position, if a party or organisation acts and or behaves by word of mouth, print or in any other manner to bring about guilty of an act of unconstitutionality. It would have no right to function as a political party."
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for registration of political parties and requires all political parties to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to the principles of secularism and democracy and uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. All recognised parties have secured registration under Section 29-A and obtained symbols.
The Election Commission has power to derecognise a party under Article 29-A of the R.P. Act, 1951. Under Clause (16A) of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, it can issue show cause notice to the party as to why the party should not be deregistered for its religious appeal to the voters contained in the manifesto and its anti-secular activity and why the recognition and symbol given to the party be not withdrawn. Even if the Election Commission is unmindful of its statutory duty or allows the BJP's commitment to construct the temple in Ayodhya made in the manifesto to have its sway over the votes, there is nothing to prevent the unsuccessful candidates to file election petitions challenging the election of successful BJP candidates on the ground of corrupt practice contained in Section 124(3) namely making an appeal to voters in the name of religion ... This promise may lead to legal complications .. (Source: The Times of India, 16 February, 1998)
