The Supreme Court Today (July 15) dismissed a plea seeking to cancel AIMIM’s political status. However, it allowed the petitioner to raise wider concerns about religion-based politics.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (July 15) dismissed a petition that had sought the cancellation of the political recognition of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a party led by Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi.
The case brought serious allegations that AIMIM, by focusing on Muslim education and promoting Sharia law, was violating the secular principles of the Indian Constitution.
This petition was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari and argued by senior Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain. The petitioner questioned why the Election Commission of India had allowed AIMIM to be registered as a political party under the Representation of the People Act, despite its religious objectives.
“The formation of the party and its constitution violates the principle of secularism. Votes cannot be sought in the name of religion. But this party advocates Muslim education and Sharia law.”
This strong statement was made in court by Vishnu Shankar Jain, who highlighted that AIMIM’s constitution talks about promoting Islamic education and Muslim welfare.
He expressed concern that such a party, which he alleged is formed specifically for Muslims, could eventually come to power and push a religious agenda.
He further argued:
“This is a political party, which can come to power in the future. The discrimination is that if I go to ECI (Election Commission) for registration in a Hindu name?”
However, a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not accept the plea to cancel AIMIM’s registration.
The Court also refused to interfere with an earlier decision by the Delhi High Court, which had similarly dismissed the plea. Instead, the judges made a significant observation:
“If a candidate seeks votes on religious grounds, then it can be challenged.”
The bench added that the right way to address such concerns is not by targeting one party but by raising a more general issue in the legal framework.
They advised the petitioner to take a broader legal approach by filing a fresh writ petition that covers all political parties promoting religion or caste-based politics.
Justice Surya Kant made a balanced comment, indicating that religious teachings themselves are not banned in Indian law.
Responding to Vishnu Shankar Jain’s argument, he said:
“If the petitioner wants to speak against all the parties seeking votes on religious or caste basis, then he should file a petition in which a broader issue is raised.”
When the petitioner questioned whether it would be discriminatory if someone applied for political registration under a Hindu identity, the judge responded clearly:
“If the Election Commission (ECI) raises objections to the teachings of Vedas or anything else, then you should go to the appropriate forum. The law will make arrangements for it. There is no objection to reading ancient texts, books or literature. There is no such restriction in the law.”
After hearing all arguments, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the current plea and gave him the liberty to file a fresh one with a broader legal perspective.
CASE TITLE:
TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI Vs UNION OF INDIA
SLP(C) No. 15147/2025
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on AIMIM
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Asaduddin Owaisi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
