Supreme Court Flags "Grey Area" In Law Over Seeking Votes On Religion, Caste

The Supreme Court, while rejecting a petition seeking de-registration and de-recognition of Asaduddin Owaisi's party AIMIM, today orally remarked that there exists a "grey area" when it comes to political parties using religious and caste sentiments to get votes, which is "dangerous". 

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi today refused to entertain the plea against AIMIM but allowed the petitioner to file a writ petition raising the larger issue without naming any particular party. 

The top court was hearing plea against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of Tirupati Narashima Murari's petition seeking quashing of the registration granted by the Election Commission to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. 

Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, held that under the Abhiram Singh verdict, an election petition can be filed against an individual candidate who seeks votes in name of religion and not a political party. 

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain for petitioners today argued that Mr Owaisi's party is in teeth of Constitution, especially the principle of Secularism. 

Advocate Jain cited a landmark ruling by Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh case where it was held that no-one can ask for votes in the name of religion.

However, the bench said that under the Abhiram Singh verdict an election petition can be filed against individual candidate who seek votes in name of religion and not a political party. 

Justice Surya Kant remarked that the AIMIM's constitution is not against the Indian Constitution.

"There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities in Constitution... party manifesto says it will work towards protection of those rights," Justice Kant remarked. 

Advocate Jain however further pressed that AIMIM's constitution also says it will promote Islamic education amongst Muslims.

Advocate Jain said that this is discriminatory as if he goes before the Election Commission and sought registration of a political party with a Hindu name, saying he will promote teaching of Vedas, Upanishads etc, he won't be allowed. 

At this point Justice Kant said that there is nothing wrong in promoting education. 

"If ECI raises objection against teaching of Vedas or anything, please go to the apt forum. Law will take care of that. Nothing wrong in reading old treatise, books or literature. Absolutely no prohibition under law," Justice Kant said. 

Advocate Jain however argued that under Constitution only education institution can do so. But Justice Kant said that it will be great if political parties engage in promoting education. 

The advocate again pressed his arguments that "AIMIM promotes unity only in Muslims, why not all Indians?"

The top court was not convinced with his arguments and suggested that he raise the larger issue without naming any party or person in a fresh plea.

Justice Kant partially agreed with advocate Jain's argument and said, "You may be right, there is some grey area... File a petition which does not name any particular person... or accuses everyone."

Justice Kant said that there are some parties which rely on caste sentiments, that's equally dangerous. 

The bench said that the larger perspective is reforms and granted liberty to petitioner to come to court with larger issue of parties seeking vote in names of caste and religion.