New Delhi, September 25, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s view that offering a ‘Dua’ (prayer) for electoral success does not, by itself, amount to undue influence or soliciting votes in the name of religion.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Mehta dismissed an appeal filed by Samajwadi Party candidate Shaan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed challenging the election of AIMIM’s Mufti Mohammad Ismail Abdul Khalique from Maharashtra’s Malegaon Central Assembly constituency.
The controversy before the Bombay High Court included allegations that Mufti Ismail had offered prayers for his electoral success during religious gatherings and campaign meetings. The election petitioner argued that when people present responded with “Amen”, it amounted to a collective pledge to vote for him.
The High Court rejected the contention, holding that saying “Amen” in response to a prayer could not be equated with making a formal pledge to vote.
“By saying Amen, the person can be said to have agreed with or seconded the prayer for the electoral success of the Respondent No.1 (Mufti Ismail). However, saying Amen is materially distinct from making the pledge, which is in the nature of a formal promise or undertaking,” it had held.
The High Court also held that a prayer for electoral success did not amount to soliciting votes on the ground of the candidate’s religion or prejudicing the prospects of a rival candidate on that basis.
Justice N. J. Jamadar, who dealt with the election petition in the High Court, had observed that a ‘Dua’ is essentially communication by a believer with God and that praying for electoral success did not, by itself, amount to undue influence or soliciting votes in the name of religion.
The election petition challenged Mufti Ismail’s victory in the November 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections from Malegaon Central and alleged various corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including appeals to voters on religious grounds.
Applying the test under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, the High Court held that a mere reference to religion or religious organisations, without an appeal to vote for a candidate on the ground of religion, would not by itself constitute a corrupt practice.
The High Court consequently rejected the election petition at the threshold, holding that it did not disclose a complete cause of action warranting a trial.
With the Supreme Court dismissing Nihal Ahmed’s appeal, the Bombay High Court’s findings, including its view concerning the ‘Dua’ for electoral success, remain undisturbed.
FOLLOW NOW
