Delhi HC dismisses plea seeking to de-register Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM as political party

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to de-register Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Justice Prateek Jalan, while dismissing the plea, noted that the arguments of the petitioner are tantamount to interference with the fundamental rights of the members of AIMIM to constitute themselves as a political party espousing their political beliefs and values.

High Court was hearing a plea filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari

The High Court was hearing a plea filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari, who at the time of filing the petition was a member of the undivided Shiv Sena and informed the court during the course of hearing that he is now a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), assailed the orders of the ECI registering and recognising the AIMIM as a political party on the ground that it does not fulfil the conditions laid down in section 29A of the Representation of the People Act.

What did the petitioner argue?

The petitioner contended that the constitution of AIMIM is intended to further the cause only of one religious community, i.e., Muslims, and thus militates against the principles of secularism, to which every political party must adhere under the scheme of the Constitution and the Act.

The counsel representing the petitioner submitted that emphasis on protection and safeguarding of the rights of a particular religious community is inconsistent with the statutory mandate of section 29A(5) of the Act, which enjoins all political parties to adopt the principle of secularism. The counsel, citing a Supreme Court judgement, said that that a breach of section 29A(5) of the Act provides a limited class of cases in which the ECI can exercise its power to deregister a registered political party. The counsel further submitted that an attempt to garner votes on the grounds of religion constitutes a “corrupt practice” under section 123(3) of the Act.

The petition was opposed by the Centre, the ECI and the AIMIM.

AIMIM fulfilled requirement of section 29A of Act: High Court

The High Court said that the AIMIM fulfilled the requirement of section 29A of the Act, which required that the constitutional documents of a political party should declare that the party bears true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, and to the basic tenets of socialism, secularism, and democracy, which are embedded in our constitutional values.

“On the facts of the present case, this requirement has been fulfilled by AIMIM. The petitioner himself has annexed to the writ petition, a letter dated 09.08.1989, submitted by AIMIM in support of its application for registration, stating that its constitution had been amended in terms of section 29A(5) of the Act,” the High Court said.

Subject to three limited exceptions, ECI has no power to review its decision to register political party: High Court

The High Court further said that subject to the three limited exceptions provided for by the Supreme Court, the ECI has no power to review its decision to register the political party, even on the ground that it has violated any provision of the Constitution, or committed a breach of the undertaking given to the ECI at the time of registration.

“The limited exception is when the political party itself acts to delete or amend the provision in its constitution, by which it demonstrated adherence to section 29A(5) of the Act. The argument (by petitioner) that the aims and objectives of the political party must be critically examined to assess whether it in fact adheres to the principles enumerated in section 29A(5) of the Act, invites a substantive review of the original decision to register the party. This is exactly what, the Supreme Court has held, cannot be done,” the High Court said.

Petitioner’s arguments are tantamount to interference with fundamental rights of members of AIMIM: High Court

The High Court further said that the petitioner’s arguments are thus “tantamount to interference with the fundamental rights of the members of AIMIM to constitute themselves as a political party espousing their political beliefs and values. Such a consequence cannot lightly be countenanced”.

The High Court also rejected the contention based on provisions of section 123 of the Act, saying the provision are not relevant to the requirements for registration of a political party, but to the outcome of a particular election, and to the disqualification of a person to participate in the electoral process.

The High Court, while taking note of the submission of the AIMIM counsel that the aims and objectives of the AIMIM have been misread by the petitioner and interpreted in a slanted manner so as to infer that it acts only for the benefit of one religious community, said it did not consider it necessary to examine this issue as the relief sought by the petitioner lies beyond the jurisdiction of the ECI.