The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition that sought to de-register the Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. The court observed that the plea was without merit and highlighted that the petitioner’s arguments infringed upon the fundamental rights of AIMIM’s members to form a political party in line with their political beliefs.
Petitioner’s Argument Against AIMIM’s Registration
The petition, filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari, contested the registration of AIMIM, arguing that the party’s constitution aimed to promote the interests of only one religious community—Muslims. According to the petitioner, this contradicted the principles of secularism mandated by the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act (RPA). The petitioner claimed that all political parties should uphold secular values, but the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that such a consequence could not be easily accepted.
Court’s Observations on Secularism and Party Constitution
The court also referred to Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, which requires that a political party’s constitution must declare its allegiance to the Constitution, including its commitment to secularism, socialism, and democracy. The court ruled that AIMIM had fulfilled this requirement. It was pointed out that the party had submitted an amended constitution that adhered to the provisions of Section 29A, as indicated in a letter submitted in 1989.
Dismissal of the Petition
In its 17-page judgment delivered on November 20, the court concluded that the plea lacked merit and dismissed it. The court further clarified that the Election Commission of India (ECI) does not have the authority to review its decision to register a political party, except under certain exceptions provided by the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s argument, which sought to critically examine the party’s aims and objectives, was seen as an attempt to review the original registration decision, something the Supreme Court had previously ruled against.
Fundamental Rights and Jurisdiction
The court stressed that the petitioner’s actions amounted to an interference with the fundamental rights of AIMIM members to form a political party. The court emphasized that such interference was not permissible and had been explicitly prohibited by previous judgments. The court also noted that it was unnecessary to further examine the party’s aims and objectives, as the relief sought by the petitioner was beyond the jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
Conclusion on Legal Grounds
Additionally, the court ruled that the provisions of Section 123 of the RPA, which deals with electoral practices, were not relevant to the registration of a political party. The judgment confirmed that the petitioner’s plea was outside the scope of the Election Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter.
