The concept of Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo refers to the landmark Supreme Court judgment, Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Others, delivered on December 11, 1995. This judgment is a key judicial interpretation of the limits of religious speech in Indian electoral politics, arising from an election petition challenging Dr. Prabhoo's victory in the 1987 Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly election.
The case originated because speeches made by Bal Thackeray, with Dr. Prabhoo's consent, were alleged to constitute a corrupt practice by appealing to voters on the ground of religion. The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision, voiding Dr. Prabhoo's election under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act). The core mechanism of the judgment was the interpretation of Section 123(3) and Section 123(3A) of the R.P. Act. Section 123(3) prohibits a candidate from appealing to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of "his" religion, while Section 123(3A) forbids promoting enmity between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion. The ratio decidendi was that the speeches constituted corrupt practices by appealing to religious grounds and inciting communal hatred, leading to the annulment of the election. The Court also analyzed the terms 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism,' stating that their mere use is not a corrupt practice unless the speech is an appeal to vote on the ground of religion.
The case connects directly to the R.P. Act, 1951, and the constitutional principle of secularism. While the 1995 judgment was not formally replaced, its interpretation of Section 123(3) was significantly broadened by the seven-judge Constitution Bench in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen in 2017. The Abhiram Singh judgment gave a purposive interpretation to the word "his" in Section 123(3), ruling that an appeal in the name of religion is impermissible if it relates to the religion of the candidate, the voter, the agent, or any other person making the appeal with the candidate's consent. This later ruling expanded the scope of what constitutes a corrupt practice under the same provision that was central to the Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo case.