15 July 2025 | New Delhi
In a significant move balancing constitutional values with political pluralism, the Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking a ban on the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). However, the Court left the door open for a broader challenge, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh writ petition focused on the legality of political parties operating on explicitly religious ideologies.
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noted that the current plea was too narrowly framed, as it targeted one specific political party without addressing the larger constitutional framework that governs political registration and secular conduct in public life.
What Was the Petition About?
The petitioner, Tirupati Narasimha Murari, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the registration of AIMIM as a political party under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that the party’s stated aims promote a religious identity in violation of India’s secular constitutional ethos.
The petitioner argued that AIMIM’s charter and public rhetoric are tailored toward advancing Islamic interests, and thereby violate the secular mandate required for parties registered with the Election Commission of India.
Supreme Court’s Stand: Constitution Over Rhetoric
The Court, however, refused to accept the premise of a blanket ban based on the current record. It pointed out that mere reference to the interests of a particular community does not amount to unconstitutional activity, especially when the party in question commits to upholding constitutional rights.
“If a political party says it stands for the upliftment of marginalised or backward communities, that in itself is not a constitutional violation,” the bench observed.
The Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s earlier order, which had already rejected the petitioner’s request for cancellation of AIMIM’s registration.
However, the bench did note that broader questions about the role of religion in political platforms remain unresolved, and explicitly granted the petitioner the freedom to return with a wider, issue-based petition—one not targeting any single party but questioning whether any political party with a religious orientation can legally exist under India’s constitutional scheme.
Constitutional Context
Under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, political parties are required to affirm allegiance to the principles of secularism, democracy, and the Constitution of India. However, there is no clear prohibition on parties being community-based, provided their methods and goals do not incite hatred or violate the law.
The Court’s stance suggests that while identity-based politics may be constitutionally permissible, they must operate within the framework of equal rights and nondiscrimination.
Why This Judgment Matters
• Affirms Party Autonomy Within Legal Bounds: The Court reaffirmed that community-based advocacy is not unconstitutional if done within the framework of the Constitution.
• Signals Scope for Future Reform: The SC’s encouragement to file a fresh petition opens the way for potential landmark litigation on religious identity in politics.
• Protects Pluralism While Inviting Legal Scrutiny: The decision protects AIMIM from a targeted challenge but implicitly acknowledges the tension between secular governance and religious identity politics.
Case Title: Tirupati Narasimha Murari v. Union of India & Ors.
