SC refuses to cancel AIMIM’s registration; allows fresh plea on political parties with religious objectives

New Delhi, July 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party, but allowed the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition raising broader issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment that had rejected the plea against AIMIM’s registration under the Representation of the People Act.

Following the bench’s reluctance to entertain the matter, petitioner Tirupati Narasimha Murari chose to withdraw his Special Leave Petition. However, the Court granted him liberty to file a writ petition raising larger issues regarding reforms in election laws.

The order recorded, “The 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 prayer for reforms in respect of the political parties on different grounds. Permission granted.”

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, argued that AIMIM’s declared objectives were to serve only the Muslim community, violating the principle of secularism under Section 29A of the RP Act.

Justice Kant, however, observed that AIMIM’s Constitution states its objectives are to work for every backwards section, including minorities, adding, “There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution… the party’s political manifesto or Constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution.”

Jain contended that AIMIM also aims to promote Islamic education among Muslims and understanding of the Quran and Sharia laws.

He argued, “If I go before ECI and seek registration with a Hindu name and give an undertaking that I want to teach my Vedas and Upanishads, the Election Commission will not register.”

Justice Kant responded, “If the ECI raises objection against the teaching of Vedas, Puranas, Shastras, or any granth, please go to the appropriate forum. The law will take care of that. There’s nothing wrong with reading our old treatises, books or literature or history. Absolutely no prohibition under law.”

Justice Kant pointed out that the Constitution protects minority rights, and a declaration to work for minority interests may not be objectionable.

He stated, “Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability, that is absolutely offending, that must be struck down… Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution, and a political party says we will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution.”

Jain referred to the Supreme Court’s Abhiram Singh judgment, which held that seeking votes in the name of religion is a corrupt practice, and contended that AIMIM’s registration was illegal on similar grounds.

Justice Kant acknowledged there was a “grey area” in law and suggested the petitioner file a neutral writ petition raising general issues without targeting a specific party, stating, “There are political parties which rely on caste considerations, that’s equally dangerous… a larger and wider perspective is reforms.”

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea, observing that AIMIM fulfilled the legal requirement of declaring true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and its basic tenets of socialism, secularism, and democracy.

 

Leave a Reply