On Tuesday, July 15, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition seeking cancellation of the registration of a political party called the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). However, the Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw his present petition and file a fresh writ petition focused on the broader issue of political parties having religious objectives.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refused to interfere with an earlier judgment of the Delhi HC which had dismissed a petition challenging the registration of AIMIM under the Representation of the People Act.
Read also: CSR Fund Scam: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Exclusion of Retired Kerala HC Judge from FIR
"Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition and is at liberty to file a writ petition in which he seeks to pray for reforms in respect of political parties on different grounds. Permission is granted," the Supreme Court recorded in its order.
The petitioner, Tirupati Narasimha Murari, alleged that AIMIM's objectives serve only the Muslim community and violate secular principles. His lawyer, Vishnu Shankar Jain, argued that AIMIM's constitution violates the secular framework laid down in Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act.
However, Justice Kant said:
"Their objective is to work for every backward class, including minorities… economically and educationally backward… Minorities are guaranteed rights under the Constitution. If their constitution says they will protect those rights, it cannot be objectionable."
Read also: SC Declines PIL on Fraudulent Loan Practices; Says ‘Go to RBI’
Jain responded that the party also aims to promote Islamic education, teach the Quran and follow Sharia laws. He pointed to bias in political registration:
"If I go before the Election Commission and say I want to teach Vedas and Upanishads in the name of a Hindu party, I will not be registered."
In response, Justice Kant remarked:
“There is nothing wrong in reading old religious texts. The law does not prohibit it. If the Election Commission objects to such cases, legal remedies are available.”
Justice Kant stressed that unless a party violates the Constitution, its objectives cannot be considered illegal:
“Suppose a party says it will promote untouchability, it should be banned. But if a religious law is protected under the Constitution, and a party says it will teach that law, it cannot be illegal if it stays within constitutional limits.”
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Extension of Ban on SIMI
Jain also cited the Abhiram Singh case, which held that seeking votes in the name of religion is a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act. He argued that parties with religious objectives take advantage of a legal vacuum and should not be allowed to contest elections.
Justice Kant admitted:
“You may be right, there are some grey areas… File a neutral petition without specifically accusing anyone. Caste-based political views are also dangerous. Raise issues of broader electoral reform.”
The bench encouraged the petitioner to raise these concerns in a fresh writ petition, rather than targeting any one specific party.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the petition against AIMIM, saying the party’s constitutional documents complied with all legal requirements, including secularism and allegiance to the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: Tirupati Narasimha Murari vs Union of India | Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15147/2025