No Law To Bar Candidates Or Parties For Divisive Caste Or Religious Politics; Remedy Lies With Legislature: Allahabad High Court

The Court held that the only consequence presently contemplated by law is disqualification under Section 8-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which operates only after a finding of guilt for corrupt practice, and that any broader prohibition falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature.

A Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, while deciding the matter, observed: “as of now there is no such provision in law which permits a complete ban on any person or political party which is desirous of contesting any election, if he/it is found to be dividing the society/voters, on the basis of caste or religion. The only provision in this regard is under Section 8-A of the Act, 1951, which entails disqualification that too, after one has been found guilty as referred therein. This is also an issue which falls within the domain of the legislature, therefore, the petitioner will have to take up this issue with the Members of the Legislature, which is competent in this regard”.

Background

The writ petition was instituted in public interest seeking, inter alia, directions to the Election Commission of India to ban caste-based political rallies, prohibit persons or political parties allegedly dividing society on caste or religious grounds from contesting elections, and cancel the registration of political parties found indulging in such practices.

The petitioner contended that caste-based political mobilisation undermines constitutional values and social harmony, and therefore warrants judicial intervention in the form of prohibitory directions.

The Election Commission of India opposed the plea, pointing out that the existing constitutional and statutory framework already provides mechanisms to regulate electoral conduct and penalise divisive political appeals.

Court’s Observation

The Court first examined the statutory scheme governing elections and noted that the Election Commission of India exercises control over electoral conduct under Article 324 of the Constitution only after notification of elections and until their conclusion.

During this period, the Court highlighted that the Model Code of Conduct operates to prohibit appeals to caste or communal sentiments, activities aggravating social divisions, and misuse of places of worship for political propaganda.

The Court noted that violations of the Model Code of Conduct attract consequences under paragraph 16-A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, including suspension or withdrawal of recognition of political parties, after due process. It further recorded that such violations may also entail criminal consequences, with the Election Commission ensuring registration of FIRs during the election period.

Referring to Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court observed that appeals to vote or refrain from voting on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language constitute a corrupt practice, the consequences of which are adjudicated through election petitions before the High Court. The Court noted that Sections 8-A and 100 of the Act provide for disqualification and declaration of elections as void, but only upon a finding of corrupt practice in accordance with law.

The Court also held that there is no provision in law permitting a complete ban on any person or political party from contesting elections merely on the allegation of dividing society or voters on caste or religious lines. The Court held that the only statutory provision in this regard is Section 8-A of the Act, 1951, which entails disqualification only after a person is found guilty of corrupt practice as referred to therein.

The Court held that any proposal to introduce a broader prohibition or pre-emptive bar on contesting elections is a matter of legislative policy and falls squarely within the domain of Parliament and State Legislatures. It was observed that courts cannot create such disqualifications in the absence of statutory backing.

The Court further noted that outside the election period, the State Government had issued a Government Order addressing caste-based political activities, including a ban on caste-based political rallies organised with political motives. The Court observed that regulatory provisions therefore exist both during and outside the election period, and what remains is their effective and unbiased implementation.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought and held that any expansion of disqualification or prohibition norms must emanate from legislative action. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Moti Lal Yadav v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:3798-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Appeared in person; assisted by Rajat Rajan Singh, Amicus Curiae

Respondents: O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Anupriya Srivastava; Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State

Click here to read/download Judgment