Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea To Ban AIMIM; Allows Petitioner To File Fresh Plea On Issue Of Parties With Religious Goals

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15) refused to entertain a plea seeking cancellation of the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. At the same time, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had rejected the plea against registration of AIMIM as a political party under the Representation of the People Act.

Following the bench's reluctance to entertain the matter, the petitioner chose to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. However, the bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition raising the larger issues regarding reforms in the election laws.

The bench recorded in the order as follows :

"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 prayer for reforms in respect of the political parties on different grounds. Permission granted."

The challenge was made by one Tirupati Narasimha Murari, who alleged that the AIMIM's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone and hence it cannot be recognized as a political party for violating the principle of secularism.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, argued that the AIMIM's Constitution violates the principles of secularism and hence they cannot be registered as a party as per Section 29A of the RP Act.

Justice Kant however pointed out that as per their Constitution, their objective is to work for every backwards section. "]It's for] every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community...backward both economically and in the field of education...that's what the Constitution professes...There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution...party's political Manifesto or Constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution...," Justice Kant said.

Jain replied, "[It also says it will] promote Islamic education amongst Muslims...reading Quran and its understanding...creating a general [awareness] amongst Muslims to abide by Sharia laws...discrimination is this that today 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, Election Commission will not register."

"If the ECI raises objection against the teaching of Vedas, Puranas, Shastras, or any granth, please go to the appropriate forum. Law will take care of that. There's nothing wrong in the reading of our old treatise, books or literature or history. Absolutely no prohibition under law," Justice Kant said.

Justice Kant, pointing out that the Constitution itself specifically grants protection to minorities, opined that a declaration to work for the interests of minorities may not be objectionable. "Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability, that is absolutely offending, that must be struck down, that must be banned...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...what is only within the framework of the Constitution [that may not be objectionable]" Justice Kant said.

Jain then asked why a political party should declare that they will work only for Muslims and not for everyone. He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Abhiram Singh case, which held that seeking votes in the name of any religion, be it of the candidate or the voter,  is a corrupt practice. Going by the spirit of the said decision, the registration of AIMIM is illegal, he contended. He further submitted that a writ petition was earlier filed in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the political parties with religious names. The Supreme Court relegated that petition to the Delhi High Court.

Jain also argued that there is a legal vacuum which many parties are trying to exploit. When seeking votes in the name of religion in an election is a corrupt practice as per Section 123(3) of the RP Act, a party with religious objectives cannot be permitted to contest elections, he said.

Justice Kant agreed that there was a "grey area" and said that the petitioner can raise these larger issues in another writ petition. "You may be right, there is some gray area...File a neutral petition which does not accuse any abcd...or which accuses each and everyone who is indulging in...There are political parties which [rely] on caste considerations, that's equally dangerous...a larger and wider perspective is reforms...without indulging any party, you can raise general issues...if need be, Court will take care...," Justice Kant said, advising the petitioner to withdraw the present matter.

Notably, rejecting the plea, the Delhi High Court had said that AIMIM fulfilled the legal requirement that the constitutional documents of a political party should declare that it bears true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, as well as to the basic tenets of socialism, secularism, and democracy.

Case Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA | SLP(C) No. 15147/2025