It is legitimate to prohibit a candidate at an election to. tell electors that he is better qualified or; that his rivals are unfit to act as their representatives on the ground of their religion. The purpose is to avoid religious issues and to sideline religious standards in the matter of determining people's representatives to democratic institutions. In Kultar Singh v.  Mukhtiar Singh[1] while considering the object of the provision Gajendragadkar C.J. observed:

“If these considerations are allowed in any way in the election campaigns, they would vitiate the secular atmosphere of democratic life.”

The Supreme Court, in the case of Abdul Hussain v. Shamsul Huda[2] seems to have taken a highly problematic view on this issue. The facts reflected that the Congress candidate had Muslim father and Hindu mother. In order to get votes from Hindu electors he stated that he was half Hindu by blood. The Gauhati High Court rightly treated the statement as an appeal on the ground of religion and set aside the election. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed by laying down the follows:

          “It may well be that a strong secularist candidate may plead with the electorate to be non-communal and therefore vote for him on the basis that he was an inter-caste or inter-racial or inter-religious product and as such a symbol of communal unity. Indeed, mixed marriages may accelerate national integration and a candidate cannot be warned off by the law from stressing this non-communal merit of his. That would be a perversion of the purpose of the provision”

After analysing the above-mentioned judicial decisions and exploring the reality, it is evident that Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act is indeed just a show-piece. The very fact that the recent chaos in the nation involve major Hindu-Muslim debates and the claim for a Hindu Rashtra makes people believe more in our Government, is a clear reflection of the contradictory reality of the provision. Yodi Adityanath being the chief minister of a state and indirectly stirring religion into politics with the asserted view of becoming the next Prime Minister is a clear violation of the provision. Even if the provision lays down the motive in details, the judiciary differs from its view from time-to-time and this is a problem because the judiciary, instead of being independent anymore, has turned out to be a reflection of the Government’s desires.