The Supreme Court of India rejected a plea that asked for the de-registration and de-recognition of Asaduddin Owaisi’s political party, AIMIM (All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen). However, the court also pointed out that using caste and religion to seek votes is a “dangerous” grey area in Indian politics.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by Tirupati Narashima Murari, who had earlier approached the Delhi High Court with the same request. The High Court had dismissed his plea. The petitioner had asked for the cancellation of AIMIM’s registration as a political party, claiming it goes against the principle of secularism in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, while refusing to entertain the plea against a specific party, allowed the petitioner to file a writ petition focusing on the larger issue of caste- or religion-based campaigning, but without naming any particular political party or person.

The court refers to Abhiram Singh case, says petition must target individuals, not parties

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who appeared for the petitioner, argued that AIMIM violates the Constitution, especially the principle of secularism. He referred to the Abhiram Singh case, a Supreme Court judgement that held that “no one can ask for votes in the name of religion.”

However, the court clarified that as per the Abhiram Singh verdict, only an election petition can be filed against an individual candidate who seeks votes using religion. The law does not apply to entire political parties.

Justice Surya Kant said that AIMIM’s party constitution is not against the Indian Constitution. He noted, “There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities in the Constitution... the party manifesto says it will work towards the protection of those rights.”

The petitioner’s lawyer then pointed out that AIMIM’s constitution talks about promoting Islamic education among Muslims. He questioned whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) would approve a political party that says it will promote Hindu education and texts like the Vedas and Upanishads.

To this, Justice Kant replied, “There is nothing wrong in promoting education… If ECI raises objection against the teaching of Vedas or anything, please go to the apt forum. Law will take care of that. There is nothing wrong with reading old treatises, books, or literature. Absolutely no prohibition under law.”

When the advocate argued that only educational institutions should do that, Justice Kant responded, “It will be great if political parties engage in promoting education.”

Court says larger problem exists, grants liberty to file new petition

The lawyer also argued that AIMIM only promotes unity among Muslims and not all Indians. But the court was not convinced. However, Justice Kant partially agreed with his concerns and said, “You may be right; there is some grey area… File a petition that does not name any particular person… or accuses everyone.”

Justice Kant added, “There are some parties that rely on caste sentiments; that’s equally dangerous.”

The court suggested that instead of targeting one party, the petitioner should file a broader plea seeking reforms on how political parties use caste and religion to get votes.

The bench said the larger goal should be political reforms and gave the petitioner the freedom to file a fresh case focusing on this issue.

You might also be interested in: 14 million children not received single vaccine in 2024: UN report