Refusing to entertain an appeal, which demanded the cancellation of the registration of All India Majlis-e-Itihadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party to allegedly promote Muslim interests, the Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the petitioner to file big issues of political parties.
Presiding over the two-judges, Justice Surya Kant said, “Let’s not limit on the question of communal parties (alone) … There are some regional aspects. They are sometimes involved in regional feelings. Is it appropriate and in the interest of national integration? So we do not capture only communal issues.
The bench, including Justice Joymlya Bagchi, suggested advocating Vishnu Shankar Jain – the petitioner Tirupati Narasimha Murari appeared for – to focus on the “large and comprehensive perspective” of reforms in political parties. It states that he can file a petition without naming any party, and without raising general issues, and if the court feels that the political party needs to listen, it will take care.
Jain said that when the name of political parties itself identifies with a particular religion, it prevents candidates and political parties from seeking votes on the basis of religion.
The bench said, “The lawyer learned for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the current petition with freedom to file a writ petition in which he wants to make extensive prayers for reforms in relation to political parties on various grounds.”
The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court on November 21, 2024, dismissed a petition, which demanded the de-recitation and de-identity of AIMIM by the Election Commission of India (ECI). The High Court included it “to form themselves as a political party to intervene with the fundamental rights of members of AIMIM.
In 2018, he was filed by Murari, a member of the undivided Shiv Sena. He challenged the recognition of AIMIM, stating that its constitution was “intended to carry forward the cause of only one religious community (Muslims), and thus military against the principles of secularism, for which each political party should follow under the plan of formation.
The story continues below this advertisement
The ECI accepted AIMIM’s request for registration on 1 June 1992, and was recognized as a state party in Telangana in 2014.
Advocate Jain told the bench on Tuesday that the Constitution of AIMIM violated the principles of secularism and hence they could not be registered as a party, which was according to Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice Kant, however, mentioned the constitution of the party and said that “every backward class in society, which belongs to minority communities … who are both economic and socially backward”.
Jain said that it also says that the party will “strive for unity among Muslims to protect its rights and interests as a guarantee under the Constitution of India”.
The story continues below this advertisement
“Why not,” asked Justice Kant. He said, “Some rights are guaranteed for minorities under the Constitution. So the party’s manifesto or constitution says that we will work for the protection of those rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Suppose they say something directly in the conflict with the Constitution, then you are right.”
Jain said that in this purpose “promoting Islamic education … reading the Quran and reading its understanding and making a common awakening among Muslims, to follow Sharia laws,” and said, it is directly in the teeth of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The lawyer said, “The discrimination is that today if I go before the Election Commission and give a undertaking that I want to teach my Vedas and Upanishads, and I want to keep a Hindu name, the commission will not registration.”
Justice Kant said, “If the ECI raises objections against the Vedas or Puranas or any scripture or any grant teaching, please go to the appropriate platform. The law will take care of it. There is nothing wrong in reading our old texts, books or literature or history, there is absolutely no restriction under the law.” The judge said, “Suppose a party says that we will promote untouchability, which is absolutely derogatory … which should be banned”
The story continues below this advertisement
Jain asked why it should only try for unity among Muslims and “Why not all of us.” Justice Kant said that the petitioner may have a point saying that parties are not doing what they do to do.
Jain mentioned the Supreme Court’s decision in the Abhiram Singh case, and said that “the strict mandate was that no political party or candidate would ask votes in the name of religion. See how this mandate is violating from time to time. If you are a political party, named for a particular community.”
Justice Kant said that Abhiram Singh can be trusted in a case where a candidate or a political party is involved in receiving votes and hence this kind of work will fall into the mischief of corrupt practice.
It was agreed that “there is some gray area”, the court said, “Some neutral petitions that do not accuse anyone or who accuses everyone and everyone.”
,
