UP Govt’s Ban On Political Caste Rallies Must Be Strictly Enforced; Value-Based Upbringing And Schooling Is The Lasting Solution: Allahabad High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2013 that sought a ban on caste-based political rallies and directions to the Election Commission of India to cancel the registration of political parties organising such gatherings. The Court declined to issue the mandamus sought against the Commission, noting that election-related enforcement mechanisms operate within the notified election period and that broader prohibitions and penalties are governed by existing legal and statutory processes. It recorded that the State Government has already imposed a complete prohibition on politically motivated caste-based rallies to maintain public order and stated its expectation that the Government order would be implemented strictly and effectively.
The matter arose from a public interest litigation filed seeking directions against caste-based political mobilisation. The petitioner approached the High Court praying for a mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to impose a blanket ban on caste-based rallies and sammelans organised by political parties, to prohibit persons or political parties allegedly dividing voters on caste or religious lines from contesting elections, and to cancel the registration of political parties found guilty of organising caste- or religion-based rallies.
The petition was heard by a Division Bench after notices were issued to all respondents. The petitioner appeared in person and was assisted by an Amicus Curiae. The Election Commission of India and the State were represented by senior counsel and standing counsel.
The Court examined the reliefs sought in light of the constitutional role of the Election Commission, the Model Code of Conduct, and the statutory framework under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Reference was made to the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, provisions relating to corrupt practices, disqualification, and grounds for declaring elections void. The Court also took note of a Government Order issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh addressing caste-based political activities during non-election periods.
The Court observed that “the Commission has a role to play only after notification of elections, till its conclusion” and recorded that “to further this cause a Model Code of Conduct has been prepared which is referable to Article 324 of the Constitution of India read with relevant provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951.”
It noted that the Model Code of Conduct clearly provides that “no party or candidate shall indulge in any activity which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities” and that “there shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes.”
The Bench recorded that “for violation of the Model Code of Conduct, action is permissible under paragraph no. 16-A of The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968” and quoted the statutory power of the Election Commission to suspend or withdraw recognition of a political party for failure to observe the Model Code of Conduct.
The Court further recorded that “any violation of the Model Code of Conduct is reported, the same also amounts to a criminal offence” and that the Election Commission ensures registration of FIRs during the election period. It also noted that additional measures include “issuance of show-cause notice, strict reprimand, censure, ban on campaigning, suspension of status of Star Campaigner.”
With respect to statutory provisions, the Court stated that “under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an appeal on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language is deemed to be a corrupt practice.” It clarified that such issues are adjudicated through election petitions.
The Bench took note of the Government Order dated 21.09.2025 and recorded that “by the said provision, ban has been imposed upon caste based rallies organized with political motive, as they promote caste division in society.”
The Court observed that "We hope and trust that the concerned authorities of the State shall implement the existing provisions of law on the subject matter in issue, as dealt with herein-above, in letter and spirit and in an effective manner so that the noble objects sought to be achieved by these provisions of law are not reduced to a mere paper work,”
The Court also noted that a lasting response to these entrenched social concerns would depend not only on legal measures, but on cultivating appropriate values through family upbringing and the education system. The bench added: "…so that the child, when he/she grows up, should have the right values and mindset and ought not to be persuaded merely by consideration of caste or religion, in tandem with the social fabric of our great country which also amounts to imbibing with the spirit of Article 51-A(e) of the Constitution of India.”
On deregistration of political parties, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment and recorded that “there is no such power vested in the Election Commission to de-register a political party,” except in limited circumstances recognised by law.
The Court directed that “provision for banning of caste based political rallies and preventing them is very much in place, whether it be during the election process or not. The only thing which remains is the will to implement the provisions effectively without any bias or favour,” and stated that implementation of such provisions “is for the concerned Government or the Election Commission to look into this aspect and do the needful.”
“If the existing statutory provisions are to be made more effective, it is for the legislature to do so,” and clarified that it remains “open for the petitioner and the learned Amicus to make their suggestions to the concerned authorities.”
“In the event the aforesaid provisions of law or the Government order, as the case may be, are not being implemented appropriately, it is open for the petitioner or the learned Amicus to collect instances of relevant data and take suitable action as per law.”
“As of now there is no such provision in law which permits a complete ban on any person or political party which is desirous of contesting any election,” and therefore “the petitioner will have to take up this issue with the Members of the Legislature, which is competent in this regard.”
“There is no such power vested in the Election Commission to de-register a political party,” and that “relief no.3 can also not be granted by us in this P.I.L.” It clarified that “the petitioner may pursue this issue also with Members of the Legislature concerned.”
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the above directions and observations.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Rajat Rajan Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate; Anupriya Srivastava, Advocate; Isha Mittal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel; C.S.C.; A.S.G.; Kaushlendra Yadav, Advocate
Case Title: Moti Lal Yadav v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:3798-DB
Case Number: Public Interest Litigation No. 5889 of 2013
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy, Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
