Relief Sought Lies Beyond Jurisdiction Of ECI: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Against Registration Granted To AIMIM As Political Party
The Delhi High has dismissed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the registration granted to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party.
The Court said that the relief sought by the Petitioner lies beyond the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
A Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan observed, “Although Mr. Hoda submitted that the aims and objectives of the AIMIM have also 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, I do not consider it necessary to examine this issue as I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner lies beyond the jurisdiction of the ECI.”
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocates Suruchi Suri (Standing Counsel), and Omar Hoda appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
In this case, the Petitioner Tirupati Narasimha Murari, member of Shiv Sena, had 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, 1951 (ROPA). The Petitioner’s contention was that the constitution of AIMIM is intended to further the cause only of one religious community (viz. 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.
AIMIM was founded as a political party in the year 1958, and made its electoral debut in 1959 by contesting municipal elections in the city of Hyderabad. Subsequently, it expanded its participation to elections to the Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in 1962. In 1984, AIMIM secured a victory in the Lok Sabha elections from the Hyderabad constituency, following which it applied for registration with ECI in 1989. Section 29A of the Act was inserted by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1988, with effect from June 15, 1989. AIMIM thereafter addressed a communication to the ECI, stating that its Constitution had been amended to bring it in line with Section 29A, including by incorporation of the provision contemplated in Section 29A(5) of the Act. The ECI accepted AIMIM’s request for registration in 1992.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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 and has been specifically proscribed in the judgments cited above.”
The Court said that the argument of the Petitioner’s counsel based on Section 123 of the Act and the judgment in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 685 is not acceptable. It added that, Section 123 of the Act defines “corrupt practices” for the purposes of the Act, which includes an Appeal by a candidate, his agent (or by any other person, with their consent) to vote one way or another on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language, or the use of religious symbols for the purposes of elections.
“However, the purpose of defining “corrupt practices” is to determine disputes in the process of election, including election petitions and to adjudicate disqualification of candidates under Section 8A of the Act. The provisions of Section 123 of the Act 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 contention based on Section 123 of the Act is therefore rejected”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Tirupati Narasimha Murari v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8952)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Hari Shankar Jain, Mani Munjal, and Parth Yadav.
Respondents: CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocates Suruchi Suri, Omar Hoda, Srish Kumar Mishra, Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Muhammad Ali Khan, Eesha Bakshi, Kamran Khan, Gurbani Bhatia, and Arjun Sharma.
