Section 123 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 defines the corrupt practices and clause (3) specifically aims at corrupt practices with regards to religious views. This states that any appeal for election made by a candidate on the grounds of promoting religion or accentuating religious feelings of the voters, promoting or demoting a particular caste or community shall be considered to be a corrupt practice.

After being able to understand the motive behind the provision and reading the provision in the present times, it is difficult to comprehend the same as the reality stands at a very different footing that what the provision states. Before jumping into any conclusion, it is imperative to understand the interpretation of the same laid down by the judiciary.

In the case of Dr. Ramesh Y. Prabhoo v. Prabhakar K. Kunte, the Apex Court clearly held that, the restriction imposed in Section 123(3) is in the interest of 'decency' in a secular polity and was, thus, a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(2) and not violative of Article 19(1)(a). in the same case, the Apex Court laid down that the speeches made by Shri Bal Thackeray, leader of the Shiv Sena, wherein he appealed to the Hindu voters to vote for the candidate of his party because he was a Hindu, and wherein he also made some derogatory references to Muslims, amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(3).

However, in the modern secular state, the role of the religion is very limited, especially in the political affairs of the state. In a secular state no state religion exists, and the individuals are permitted to profess, practise and propagate the religion of their choice subject to certain limitations. The religion of a person has no political significance to the possession of political or civil rights, or the capacity to hold any political office.

Hence 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 side line religious standards in the matter of determining people's representatives to democratic institutions.

Recently, the Supreme Court, in Abhiram Singh v. C.D.Commachen, held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and the election of a candidate who indulged in it can be set aside.

After analysing the above-mentioned judicial decision 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.