Today(on 22nd May),The Delhi High Court issues notices to the Election Commission of India and the Indian Union Muslim League regarding a plea challenging the merger with the Muslim League Kerala State Committee. Filed by MG Dawood Miakhan, the petition argues that the merger diminishes IUML’s national integrity by relegating it to a state-level entity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court today(on 22nd May), took a significant step by issuing notices to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) regarding a contentious plea that challenges the merger between IUML and the Muslim League Kerala State Committee (MLKSC). This comes after a petition was lodged by MG Dawood Miakhan, who claims the merger undermines the national integrity of IUML by relegating it to a state-level entity.
The court has scheduled further hearings for August 6, granting a four-week period for both parties to submit their responses.
Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, emphasized the need for clarity on the matter by ordering the involved parties to present their standings, which could potentially reshape the political landscape concerning party mergers.
Background
The merger in question took place back in November 2011 and has since sparked controversy, particularly among members within the IUML. Miakhan, the grandson of IUML founder Quaide Milleth M Mohammed Ismail, has been particularly vocal about his concerns. He initially sought redress from the ECI, but his pleas were dismissed on grounds of lacking locus standi, which further fueled the dispute.
Miakhan, in his plea, has articulated a critical perspective on the merger’s legality, stating-
“The merger was planned with malicious intent, guided by Mr. KM Khader Mohideen and Mr. E Ahmed (now deceased), to circumvent potential consequences from Respondent no.1 [ECI] concerning their dual memberships.”
ALSO READ: #BREAKING|| Suspension of CAA || Muslim Body (IUML) Filed Petition Before the Supreme Court
He argues that the merger was a strategic move to sidestep potential legal repercussions over the dual roles held by prominent members within the IUML and MLKSC.
Furthermore, Miakhan accuses the ECI of passivity, asserting-
“Afterwards, the ECI remained silent on this matter and did not pursue any further investigation into the issue of holding dual memberships.”
This accusation highlights a perceived inaction that could have implications for the oversight responsibilities of the ECI.
The plea elaborates on the complexities of the dual membership, noting that despite a show cause notice issued by the ECI on July 7, 2011, the response from Mohideen was dismissive of any legal wrongdoing, claiming-
“There is no explicit rule prohibiting an individual from being a member of two political parties simultaneously, thus, no violation has occurred.”
The legal representation for Miakhan, led by Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey along with advocates Chaitanya Singh and Ayush Sachan, presents a formidable challenge to the merger, arguing that it was a “dubious false merger” carried out to protect the political stature of certain individuals rather than serving the broader interests of the IUML community.
ALSO READ: IUML Challenged Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Supreme Court and Election Commission
On the other side, Advocate Sidhant Kumar represents the Election Commission of India, tasked with defending the ECI’s position and handling of the matter.
