While refusing to entertain an appeal which sought cancellation of the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party for allegedly promoting only Muslim interests, the Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted the petitioner to file a fresh petition raising larger issues of political parties advancing not just communal, but even casteist or regional interests, terming it “equally dangerous”.
Presiding over a two-judge bench, Justice Surya Kant said, “Let’s not confine to the question of communal parties (alone)… There are some regional parties. They also sometimes indulge in regional sentiments. Is it appropriate and in the interest of national integration?… So let us not confine only to communal issues. There are political parties which bank upon caste considerations. That is equally dangerous.”
The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, suggested to Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain – who appeared for the petitioner Tirupati Narasimha Murari – to focus on the “larger and wider perspective of reforms in the political parties.” It said he can file a petition without naming any party, and raising general issues, and that if the court feels the political party needs to be heard, it will take care.
Jain contended that when the name of political parties itself identifies with a particular religion, it bars candidates and political parties from seeking votes on the basis of religion.
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a writ petition in which he wishes to make a wider prayer for reforms in respect of the political parties on different grounds. Ordered accordingly,” the bench said in the order.
The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court’s November 21, 2024, dismissal of a plea which sought de-registration and de-recognition of AIMIM by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The high court termed it as “tantamount to interference with the fundamental rights of the members of AIMIM to constitute themselves as a political party”.
The plea was filed by Murari, a member of the undivided Shiv Sena, in 2018. He challenged the AIMIM’s recognition, contending that its constitution was “intended to further the cause only of one religious community (Muslims), and thus militates against the principles of secularism, to which every political party must adhere under the scheme of the Constitution and the (Representation of the People) Act”.
Story continues below this ad
The ECI had accepted the AIMIM’s request for registration on June 1, 1992, and it was recognised as a state party in Telangana in 2014.
Advocate Jain told the bench Tuesday that AIMIM’s Constitution violated the principles of secularism and hence they cannot be registered as a party as per section 29A of The Representation of People Act, 1951.
Justice Kant, however, referred to the party’s constitution and said it says “every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority communities…that are both economically and socially backward.”
Jain pointed out that it also says the party will “strive for unity among the Muslims for safeguarding their rights and interests as guaranteed under the Constitution of India”.
Story continues below this ad
“Why not,” asked Justice Kant. He added, “There are certain rights guaranteed to the minorities under the Constitution. So the party’s manifesto or constitution says we will work for the protection of those rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Suppose they say something directly in conflict with the Constitution, then you are right.”
Jain said the objective also includes “promoting Islamic education…reading the Koran and its understanding, creating a general awakening among the Muslims to abide by Shariat laws,” and added, this is directly in the teeth of Supreme Court judgments.
The counsel said, “The discrimination is this that today if I go before Election Commission and give an undertaking that I want to teach my veda and upanishads, and I want to have a Hindu name, the Commission will not register.”
Justice Kant said, “If the ECI raises an objection against the teaching of Vedas or puranas or any sastras or any grant, please go to the appropriate forum. Law will take care of that. There is nothing wrong in reading our old treatise, books or literature or history, there is absolutely no prohibition under the law.” The judge added, “Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability, that is absolutely offending…that must be banned”
Story continues below this ad
Jain asked why it must strive for unity only among Muslims and “why not all of us.” Justice Kant said the petitioner may have a point in contending that the parties are not doing what they undertake to do.
Jain referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Abhiram Singh case, and said “the strict mandate was that no political party or the candidate will ask votes in the name of religion. See how this mandate is getting violated time and again. If you are a political party which has a particular name which name itself is for a particular community…the question is whether the judgement delivered by this court in the Abhiram Singh case is getting effectively implemented.”
Justice Kant said Abhiram Singh can be relied upon in a case where a candidate or a political party indulge in religious sentiments to get votes and therefore whether such act would fall in the mischief of corrupt practice.
Agreeing that there “there is some grey area”, the court added, “File some neutral petition which does not accuse anyone or which accuses each and everyone.”
