NEW DELHI: Chief Justice TS Thakur on Thursday declared that the Supreme Court cannot allow religion to enter the secular arena of elections, criticised Parliament for doing nothing on this front for two decades and wondered why the court should not make any appeal for votes on the ground religion an electoral offence.“Parliament has done nothing in the last 20 years while the reference (on the matter) was pending.Maybe, it is waiting for us to pronounce the judgement like in the sexual harassment case,” the CJI said, refusing to stick to its earlier rulings which make appeals made only in the name of the candidate’s religion, or that of his rival, a corrupt electoral practice.That would imply that a leader such as Sunderlal Patwa , a Jain, or his campaigners could appeal for votes in the name of the Ram temple, the CJI observed.Also, a Jew could not ask for Jew votes, but appeal for non-Jew votes, the CJI told Patwa’s counsel Shyam Divan.“Can a fatwa be iss u e d a s k i n g Muslims to vote for a Hindu candidate? Is that permissible,” he asked.“The very purpose of the legislation (Representation of People Act, 1951) is to ensure there is no basis for religion. Religion should be separated from the political process.”The CJI is heading a seven-judge bench which is dealing with petitions seeking to clarify the law which bars an appeal on the name of religion.If found guilty, a candidate can be disqualified. In 1995, a bench headed by the then CJI JS Varma ruled that Hindutva was not a religion but a way of life, and that a mere reference to Hindutva or Hinduism wasn’t a corrupt practice.It had then cleared nine top BJP leaders, including Patwa, of the charges of appealing for votes in the name of religion. Another bench disagreed with this finding and referred the issue to a larger bench.That is coming up for hearing now, after two decades, due to the court’s crowded calendar. On Thursday, the CJI demanded to know why the law should not be interpreted in a manner so as to bar any appeal made on the ground of religion.“The essence, the ethos of our constitutional system, is secularism… religion and politics don’t mix. Elections are a secular activity or not? In a secular state, can religion be brought into secular activities,” the chief justice asked.He, however, clarified that for now the court would not venture into defining religion or reexamining its earlier ruling defining Hindutva as a way of life. “It is difficult to define religion. There will be no end to this,” Justice Thakur said.