The Delhi High Court rejected a petition to annul the registration of AIMIM as a political party, affirming that the Election Commission acted within its authority. The court found that AIMIM’s constitution met the requirements of the Representation of the People Act, rendering the petitioner’s arguments moot following amendments made by the party.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash the registration of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, upheld the Single Judge’s ruling, concluding that the ECI had acted within its legal authority when it granted recognition to AIMIM.
The petitioner, Tirupathi Narshima Murari, contended that AIMIM’s registration violated Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. He argued that AIMIM’s constitution primarily served the interests of one religious community—Muslims—thereby conflicting with the secular principles mandated by the Act.
However, the Court noted that AIMIM had amended its constitution to align with the provisions of Section 29A(5). The Bench emphasized that the petitioner’s primary argument no longer held merit after this amendment.
“We find no infirmity with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the requirements of Section 29A(5) of the Act are fully satisfied. Therefore, there is no ground to de-register AIMIM as a political party,”
the Division Bench stated.
The Court clarified that Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, which defines “corrupt practices,” is unrelated to the registration criteria for political parties. Instead, it addresses disputes arising during elections, such as petitions and candidate disqualifications.
Earlier, the Single Judge Bench had dismissed similar challenges, confirming the legality of AIMIM’s registration.
This decision reinforces that political parties must comply with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act but cannot be disqualified on allegations unrelated to the Act’s registration criteria.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Mani Munjal, Khushboo Tomar
Respondents: Central Govt. Standing Counsel Shashank Bajpai, Government Pleader Vedansh Anand, Advocates Stuti Karwal, Soumyadip Chakraborty, SC Suruchi Suri
Case Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Read the Judgement here:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE