Triupati Narashima Murari vs Union Of India And Ors. on 20 November, 2024

Outcome**
The writ petition was dismissed. The Delhi High Court upheld the registration and recognition of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party by the Election Commission of India (ECI), finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) possesses the power to deregister or cancel the registration of a political party (AIMIM) that was duly registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act), on the ground that its stated aims and objectives, despite incorporating the statutory declaration, are inconsistent with the principle of secularism and primarily serve one religious community, thereby allegedly violating Section 29A(5) of the Act.

3. Key Facts
* The petitioner, Tirupati Narashima Murari (a member of Shiv Sena, now BJP), challenged the ECI's registration and recognition of AIMIM as a political party.
* AIMIM was founded in 1958, applied for registration in 1989 after Section 29A of the Act came into effect.
* On August 9, 1989, AIMIM informed the ECI that its Constitution had been amended to comply with Section 29A, including the specific declaration required by Section 29A(5).
* ECI registered AIMIM on June 1, 1992, and subsequently recognized it as a State-level party in Telangana on June 19, 2014.
* The petitioner contended that AIMIM's aims and objectives, as outlined in its constitution, promote the cause of only the Muslim community, thus violating the principles of secularism mandated by Section 29A(5) and the Constitution.
* ECI had previously, on June 3, 2016, declined to compel a name change for AIMIM, noting that while new registrations with religious names were disallowed post-2005, pre-existing parties with religious connotations in their names (e.g., Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, Indian Union Muslim League, Shiv Sena) were not required to change theirs.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)
* Petitioner (Tirupati Narashima Murari):
* AIMIM's aims and objectives (e.g., striving for Muslim unity, safeguarding their rights, promoting Islamic education, securing employment for Muslims, promoting Shariat Laws) demonstrate a focus on one religious community.
* This focus is inconsistent with the statutory requirement of adherence to "secularism" under Section 29A(5) of the Act.
* Citing Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors., argued that a breach of Section 29A(5) falls within the limited exceptions where ECI can deregister a party.
* Citing Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen & Ors., argued that an attempt to garner votes on religious grounds constitutes a "corrupt practice" under Section 123(3) of the Act, and a party founded on religious lines would ipso facto make its candidates guilty of such practices.
* Respondents (Union of India, ECI, and AIMIM):
* AIMIM had formally fulfilled Section 29A(5) by amending its constitutional documents to include the explicit declaration of allegiance to the Constitution and principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy.
* No subsequent amendment or change in AIMIM's constitution has occurred that would breach the Act and warrant deregistration.
* Relied on Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors. to assert that ECI has no general power to deregister a political party once registered, except in three specific, narrow exceptions (fraud, party itself abrogating the Section 29A(5) declaration, or party being declared unlawful). The present case does not fall under these exceptions.
* Section 123 of the Act, dealing with corrupt practices, is irrelevant to the initial registration or ongoing recognition of a political party.
* The petitioner's interpretation of AIMIM's aims and objectives is slanted and misrepresents their true nature.
* The registration of political parties is an exercise of the fundamental right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* The Court recognized the indispensable role of political parties in a democratic system and their members' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) (to form associations) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
* It noted that AIMIM had duly amended its constitution to explicitly incorporate the declaration required by Section 29A(5) of the Act, pledging faith and allegiance to the Constitution, principles of socialism, secularism, and democracy, and upholding India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity.
* The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors., which held that the ECI has no inherent or express power to deregister a political party once registered under Section 29A.
* The Indian National Congress judgment carved out three narrow exceptions for deregistration:
1. Registration obtained through fraud or forgery.
2. The political party itself amends its constitution to abrogate the Section 29A(5) declaration or explicitly informs the ECI that it no longer adheres to these principles.
3. Similar grounds requiring no inquiry, such as a party being declared unlawful by the Central Government.
* The Court found that the petitioner's arguments, challenging the interpretation of AIMIM's aims and objectives as inconsistent with secularism, effectively sought a substantive review of the ECI's original decision to register the party. This falls outside the limited exceptions. There was no allegation of fraud, nor had AIMIM formally abrogated its constitutional commitment.
* The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Section 123 of the Act (corrupt practices), clarifying that this section pertains to election disputes and candidate disqualification, not to the statutory requirements for the registration or ongoing recognition of political parties.
* Interfering with the registration would amount to an unwarranted interference with the fundamental rights of AIMIM members.
* Given its finding on the ECI's limited jurisdiction, the Court did not find it necessary to delve into the merits of whether AIMIM's aims and objectives were truly inconsistent with secularism.

6. Statutory References
* Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(c)
* Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 29A (sub-sections 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), Section 123 (sub-sections 3, 3A), Section 8A
* Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988
* Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
* General Clauses Act: Section 21

7. Precedents Cited
* Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 685
* Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 629
* DMDK vs. Election Commission of India (2012) 7 SCC 340
* Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
* V.R. Sreerama Rao vs. Telugudesam, a political party 1982 SCC OnLine AP 251
* Rizwan Haider vs. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen & Anr. [W.P.(C) 9938/2015, decided on 19.10.2015]
* Hans Raj Jain vs. Election Commission of India 2015 SCC OnLine Del 8173