New Delhi, Oct. 20: The Supreme Court today dissected the question of religion in electoral politics through vivid illustrations.

Senior counsel Shyam Divan, representing BJP veteran Sunderlal Patwa who is involved in an election dispute, repeatedly contended that a candidate could not be prosecuted if an agent or a party sympathiser allegedly appeals for votes in the name of religion.

The bench told him that under the act, such appeals by agents and supporters warrant the disqualification of the winning candidate.

"Let us take the case of Mr Sunderlal Patwa. He belongs to the Jain community. But some person acting on behalf of him makes an appeal that Mr Patwa, though a Jain, will help in making the Ram mandir," Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur said. "Candidate himself will not ask for votes; somebody else on his behalf would say, 'You must vote for him'."

He added: "The very purpose of the legislation (Representation of the People Act) is to ensure there is no basis for religion (in politics). Religion should be separated from the political process."

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: "The election agent is acting on behalf of the candidate. The law was enacted with an intention of stamping out communalism."

Justice Thakur said, by way of illustration: "A particular candidate belongs to one religion. The opposite candidate belongs to another religion. The election agent of the candidate in question belongs to another religion. The person making the speech belongs to yet another different religion and finally the voter belongs to another religion. Does it mean that an appeal on religious grounds is permissible?"

Divan said it was permissible as long as it had not been made by the candidate or with his consent.

The bench asked: "Let us say there is a gathering of Hindus in a particular constituency. Candidate is a Muslim. The person making the appeal on behalf of the candidate is a Sikh. Do you think it (an appeal for votes on the ground of the religion of any of these people) is permissible?

"Or, (say) a candidate is a Muslim. He is not making a speech. He is also not saying anything about the other candidate who is a Christian. But a person who is making a speech on behalf of the candidate in question says, 'You are all Hindus, vote for the candidate'. Do you think it is permissible?"

Activists' plea

Civil rights activists Teesta Setalvad, Shamsul Islam and Dilip Mandal today jointly approached the apex court seeking to intervene in the hearing.

Without referring to the Narendra Modi dispensation, the trio argued that the propagation of "supremacist" views by some groups had left minorities, Dalits and other underprivileged sections insecure.

"For the past two-and-a-half years, articulations of a narrow, supremacist variety have engendered a deep feeling of insecurity for minorities, freethinkers, atheists and all those who uphold the constitutional ideal of an India meant for all, irrespective of caste, creed, gender, politics or faith," the application, moved through counsel Aparna Bhat, said.

The applicants said the 1990s judgment exempting electoral appeals to "Hindutva" from the axe of Section 123(3A) was erroneous given the context of the speeches and their audience. The application is yet to be listed for hearing.

The court had yesterday said it was not allowing the Centre to be party to the case at this juncture since the matter related to electoral disputes.