Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel AIMIM Registration, Opens Door for Broader Petition on Political Parties Advancing Divisive Interests
In a significant hearing held on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India declined to entertain a plea seeking the de-registration of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party, while simultaneously opening the door to a larger national conversation on the issue of political parties promoting communal, casteist, or regional agendas.
#SupremeCourt #AIMIM #ElectoralReform
Bench Encourages Broader Legal Challenge
A two-judge bench led by Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, presided over the matter and observed that concerns regarding communal politics must be viewed within a larger framework that also scrutinizes caste-based and regional identity politics, which the bench said were “equally dangerous” to national unity.
“Let’s not limit ourselves to the issue of communalism alone,” remarked Justice Kant. “There are also regional parties that often invoke regional sentiment, and many others that heavily rely on caste-based mobilisation. The question remains—Is that consistent with the ideals of national integration?”
#CastePolitics #Regionalism #NationalIntegration
Petitioner Allowed to Withdraw & Refile on Broader Grounds
The petition, originally filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari, a political activist associated with the undivided Shiv Sena, was presented by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain. It challenged AIMIM’s registration with the Election Commission of India (ECI), claiming that the party’s constitution and name promoted religious exclusivity, violating India’s secular principles.
However, rather than deciding on the merits of the narrow petition, the court allowed Jain to withdraw the current plea, granting him liberty to file a new, comprehensive writ petition focusing on systemic electoral reforms. This new petition, the court advised, should raise constitutional issues of public interest and avoid targeting any specific political party unless necessary.
#ElectoralReforms #Secularism #RepresentationOfPeopleAct
Background: The Case Against AIMIM
Murari’s initial challenge was based on the argument that AIMIM’s constitution and party name signified its commitment to serving only one religious group—Muslims, which, he contended, violated Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as well as the constitutional doctrine of secularism.
The plea further pointed out that the Delhi High Court, in November 2024, had already dismissed this demand, stating that any move to de-register AIMIM would amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of its members to organize and function as a political party under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.
#RepresentationOfPeopleAct #DelhiHighCourt #ConstitutionalRights
What the Court Said: On Secularism, Rights & Reasonableness
Justice Kant observed that merely advocating for the rights of minorities, especially if they are constitutionally guaranteed, does not violate secularism.
Reading from the AIMIM party constitution, the court noted that the party commits to uplift “every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority communities… that are both economically and socially backward.” The court emphasized that minority rights are constitutionally protected and working towards their realisation is not inherently unconstitutional.
When Jain countered that AIMIM’s goals also include promoting Islamic education, Quranic understanding, and adherence to Sharia, Justice Kant responded, “Unless such provisions are in direct conflict with the Constitution, they are not grounds for de-registration.”
Justice Kant also drew a balanced comparison, stating, “If tomorrow, someone wanted to promote the Vedas or Upanishads, and the ECI objects, the appropriate legal remedy exists. There is no legal prohibition against promoting religious knowledge unless it violates fundamental rights or the Constitution.”
#ReligiousFreedom #MinorityRights #IndianConstitution
Reference to the Supreme Court’s Precedents
Jain argued that the registration of religiously named parties violated the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the Abhiram Singh case, which prohibited political parties and candidates from seeking votes in the name of religion, race, caste, community, or language.
Justice Kant acknowledged the relevance of the Abhiram Singh precedent but clarified that it is applicable when a candidate actively solicits votes based on religion or caste, qualifying it as a corrupt practice under election law, not necessarily when a party is named after a particular community.
“There is a grey area, yes,” said the bench. “That is why we suggest filing a neutral petition, one that challenges the systemic issues without targeting any one party, or challenges all such parties uniformly.”
#AbhiramSinghCase #CommunalPolitics #CorruptPractices
Court’s Final Observations and the Way Forward
Summing up the hearing, the court passed a formal order stating:
“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.”
