Mandamus Compelling ECI to Campaign Against Caste/Religion in Elections Not Issuable; Change is Not Overnight: Madras High Court - 2025-08-14

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea for Mandamus on ECI to Campaign Against Caste and Religion in Elections

CHENNAI — The Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to compel the Election Commission of India (ECI) to launch a widespread awareness campaign against the use of religion and caste in elections. The bench, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan, concluded that such a broad directive in the form of a Writ of Mandamus could not be issued, observing that societal change is gradual and cannot happen "over night."

---

Background of the Petition

The writ petition was filed by Mr. Rajesh Anouar Mahimaidoss, appearing as a party-in-person. He requested the court to issue a series of directions to the ECI. The petitioner sought the framing of a system to educate citizens and political representatives on several key principles: -

The Preamble to the Constitution of India. -

The Supreme Court's landmark 2017 judgment in Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen , which held that any appeal for votes based on the religion, race, caste, community, or language of the candidate, their agent, or the voter constitutes a "corrupt practice." -

The provisions of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which define corrupt practices.

The petitioner also requested that the ECI use its ambassadors, social media, mainstream media, and public spaces to disseminate this information and to appoint an independent commission of retired judges and activists to oversee enforcement.

Arguments and Court's Reasoning

The petitioner argued for a proactive and extensive campaign by the ECI to uphold the secular fabric of Indian democracy during elections.

The Election Commission of India, represented by counsel Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, filed a counter-affidavit detailing its ongoing efforts. The ECI submitted that it was already doing its "best to achieve optimum turn out in the elections and also to ensure that the campaign in the election is not based on religion and caste."

The High Court bench, after hearing both sides, sided with the ECI's position and underscored the practical challenges of enforcing such sweeping changes in a vast and diverse nation.

"In a vast country like ours, the change cannot be over night. Democracy, though is 75 years old, is still in its infancy."

The court expressed a hopeful yet pragmatic view on the matter, stating:

"Therefore, we can only hope that things change at least after some time and the people concerned namely, the citizens as well as the politicians change and they do not adopt caste or religion as the basis for either contesting in the election or for their voting preferences."

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the court found that a judicial directive compelling the ECI to undertake the specific actions requested by the petitioner was not warranted, especially in light of the ECI's existing initiatives.

"We do not think, such a mandamus sought for by the petitioner can be issued, in the light of the counter affidavit filed by the Election Commission," the bench declared while dismissing the writ petition.

The judgment reaffirms the principle of judicial restraint in matters of policy and large-scale administrative action, acknowledging the operational domain of constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. While the court did not grant the petitioner's specific prayers, its observations highlight the persistent challenge of identity politics in Indian elections and the long road towards realizing a truly secular electoral process.