SC Allows Withdrawal of Plea Against AIMIM, Suggests Wider Challenge on Religion in Politics

Hyderabad MP and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi | Photo: PTI

SC Allows Withdrawal of Plea Seeking Deregistration of AIMIM, Suggests Wider Challenge on Religion in Politics

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of the registration of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), led by Asaduddin Owaisi, as a political party on grounds of having “religious objectives.” However, the Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to file a broader constitutional challenge addressing systemic issues concerning political parties with religious or caste-based agendas.

The matter came before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant (the next Chief Justice of India) and Justice J.B. Pardiwala (Joymalya Bagchi is likely a confusion, correct name J.B. Pardiwala) after Delhi High Court had earlier dismissed a similar plea.

The petition was filed by Tirupati Narsimha Murari, President of the Shiv Sena (Telangana wing), through advocate Vishnu Shankar Jha. The petitioner argued that AIMIM functions primarily to serve the Muslim community and promotes Islamic education, which, he claimed, violates Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951—a provision that mandates every political party to swear allegiance to the principles of secularism and democracy enshrined in the Constitution.

Petitioner’s Argument: AIMIM’s Objectives Are Religious

Advocate Jha contended that AIMIM’s constitution itself reveals that its objectives are community-specific and religious in nature, thereby conflicting with India’s secular democratic framework. He posed a rhetorical question:

“If I approach the Election Commission with a Hindu name and say I want to teach the Vedas, my registration will likely be rejected. Why should promoting Islamic education not attract the same objection?”

He also cited the Supreme Court’s 2017 Abhiram Singh judgment, which classified seeking votes in the name of religion as a corrupt electoral practice.

Supreme Court’s Observations: Constitutional Boundaries Defined

Justice Surya Kant, after perusing AIMIM’s constitution, observed:

“It is not confined to one community. It speaks about the welfare of all backward classes in society—economically and educationally. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to minorities, and a party manifesto stating it will work to protect those rights is not unconstitutional.”

The Court emphasized that promoting what is constitutionally protected is permissible, whereas any party advocating practices prohibited by law—such as untouchability—would cross the constitutional line.

“If a party says we will promote untouchability, that would be bad. But if a party says it will teach what is protected under the Constitution, there is no legal prohibition,” Justice Surya Kant clarified.

Responding to the petitioner’s comparison with Hindu-centric objectives, the Bench remarked:

“If the Election Commission raises objections against teaching the Vedas or any literature, approach the appropriate forum. There is nothing wrong in reading old treaties or books; the law imposes no such prohibition.”

Court Admits Grey Area, Suggests Systemic Reforms

Acknowledging a “grey area” in law regarding political parties exploiting caste or religious identities, the Court suggested filing a comprehensive writ petition that does not target a single party but seeks systemic reforms:

“You may be right. There is some grey area. File a petition which does not name a particular person or accuse everyone. There are parties which rely on caste sentiments; that is equally dangerous.”

Consequently, the present petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a broader plea challenging the validity of political parties formed on religious, caste, or sectarian lines.

Delhi High Court’s Stand & Legal Requirements

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had upheld AIMIM’s registration, noting that the party complied with the statutory requirement to declare in its constitution:

“True faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and the principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy.”

Thus, AIMIM met the formal legal prerequisites, even if its ideological leanings reflect minority identity politics—a debate not explicitly settled in law.

Larger Question Before the Nation

This case goes beyond AIMIM and raises a fundamental constitutional question:
Should political parties based on religion, caste, or identity have a place in India’s secular democracy?

The Supreme Court underlined that constitutional protections for minorities are not illegal, but systemic clarity is needed to prevent misuse of identity politics. Broader judicial reforms and possibly legislative measures may be required to plug these loopholes.

Takeaway: Judiciary Draws the Line

The Court’s approach is clear:

• Anything within the constitutional framework is allowed.
• Anything that violates fundamental constitutional principles invites judicial intervention.

The message to citizens and policymakers is equally clear—targeting one party will not fix the problem. Instead, meaningful electoral and political reforms are necessary to ensure India’s democratic fabric remains truly secular.

Until such reforms occur, the grey areas in law will continue to allow exploitation by political actors.