Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Registration of AIMIM as a Political Party

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of registration granted to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Judge Prateek Jalan He rejected the plea filed by Tirupati Narashima Murari, who also objected to the circular issued by the ECI in 2014, providing recognition of AIMIM as a State-level party in Telangana State.

He also sought to prevent the ECI from recognizing the AIMIM as a registered political party and treating it as such.

AIMIM was founded in 1958. The defense was made in 2018. Murari was then a member of the Shiv Sena party. It was his case that the AIMIM had failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which deals with registration of associations and organizations as political parties with the ECI.

He maintained that AIMIM’s constitution is as follows: It seeks to advance the cause of only one religious community (Muslims) and therefore goes against the principles of secularism that every political party must follow under the Constitution of India and the RP Act.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Jalan said AIMIM had satisfied the legal requirement that a political party’s constitutional documents must declare that that party has genuine faith and commitment to the Constitution as well as the fundamental principles of socialism, secularism and democracy.

“The petitioner’s allegations therefore amount to interference with the fundamental right of AIMIM members to establish themselves as a political party espousing their own political beliefs and values. “Such an outcome cannot be taken lightly and is specifically prohibited in the above-mentioned decisions,” he said.

The court also rejected Murari’s lawyer’s argument that the attempt to garner votes on the basis of religion constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the RP Act.

Justice Jalan said the purpose of defining “corrupt practices” was to identify disputes in the election process, including election petitions, and decide on disqualification of candidates under Section 8A of the RP Act.

“The provisions of Section 123 of the Act concern the outcome of a particular election and the disqualification of a person from participating in the electoral process, and not the registration requirements of a political party. For this reason, the claim based on Article 123 of the Law is rejected.”

Plaintiff’s attorney: Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Mrs. Mani Munj

Participants’ Lawyer: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, UOI Defenders; Ms. Suruchi Suri, SC for ECI; Mr Muhammad Ali Khan, Hon. Omer Hoda, Mrs. Eesha Bakshi, Mr. Kamran Khan, Ms. Gurbani Bhatia and Mr. Arjun Sharma, R-3 advocates

Title: TIRUPATI NARASHIMA MURARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Click here to read the rankings