Plea to delete part of BJP manifesto rejected

The petitioners are Bishop Ezra Sargunam, president of Forum for the Co-ordination of Dalit, BC’s and Minorities, Dr M Deivanayagam, president, Forum for the Protection of BC/SC/ST’s and Religious Minorities of Tamil Nadu, V Karuppan, IAS (retired), president, Federation of Dalit Action andPanchami Land Restoration Movement and S Shaik Dawood, organising secretary and M G Dawood Miakhan, general secretary, Tamil Maanila Muslim League, Chennai.

According to petitioners, the BJP and its allies jointly organised an agitation which ultimately culminated into the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. The BJP made it its sole aim and object to demolish the Masjid and to construct a Ram Temple in the site. Consequent to the demolition, communal disturbances, demonstrations, agitations and violence erupted all over the country between two religions and the loss of life and property all over were enormous.

However, in its 1998 election manifesto, the BJP had mentioned that the “party is committed to facilitate the construction of a magnificent Sri Ram Mandir at Ram Janmasthalam in Ayodhya, where a makeshift temple already exists. The BJP will explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means to facilitate the construction of the temple”.

Petitioners contended that the constructionof Ram temple at the disputed site will be in clear violation of the direction given by the Supreme Court to maintain status-quo. Therefore, the manifesto is to make an attempt to circumvent the order of the Apex Court.

Further, Section 123(3)(a) of the Representation of the People Act has stated that promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language by a candidate for the furtherance of the prospects of the election, will amount to a corrupt practice. The EC is duty bound to prevent any such illegal attempts by parties by making promises in election manifestos. An issue which is the subject matter before the Supreme Court cannot be the subject matter of an election manifesto, petitioners contended.