The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to deregister parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi-led All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen as a political party.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and justice Joymala Bagchi suggested that the petitioner could file a plea on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements.
"We are not on communal parties, etc. Sometimes, regional parties invoke regional sentiments... So what should be done... There are parties who also invoke caste issues that are equally dangerous. Without criticising anyone, such issues can be raised," justice Kant said.
The bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh plea raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives.
The plea was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari, who alleged that AIMIM's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone, violating the principle of secularism, and hence it cannot be recognised as a political party.
The bench, however, observed that as per the constitution of the party, its objective is to work for every backward section. The bench said the party's constitution is "for every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community... backward both economically and in the field of education... that's what the Constitution professes".
Justice Kant said, "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution... party's political manifesto or constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution."
The senior judge pointed out that India's Constitution grants protection to minorities.
"Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability; that is absolutely offending. That must be struck down, that must be banned... Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution... What is only within the framework of the Constitution (that may not be objectionable)," justice Kant said. SC advised the petitioner to file a "neutral" petition.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and justice Joymala Bagchi suggested that the petitioner could file a plea on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements.
"We are not on communal parties, etc. Sometimes, regional parties invoke regional sentiments... So what should be done... There are parties who also invoke caste issues that are equally dangerous. Without criticising anyone, such issues can be raised," justice Kant said.
The bench allowed the petitioner to file a fresh plea raising larger issues regarding the validity of political parties with religious objectives.
The plea was filed by Tirupati Narasimha Murari, who alleged that AIMIM's declared objectives were to serve the Muslim community alone, violating the principle of secularism, and hence it cannot be recognised as a political party.
The bench, however, observed that as per the constitution of the party, its objective is to work for every backward section. The bench said the party's constitution is "for every backward class in society, including those belonging to minority community... backward both economically and in the field of education... that's what the Constitution professes".
Justice Kant said, "There are certain rights guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution... party's political manifesto or constitution says it will work for the protection of those rights granted under the Constitution."
The senior judge pointed out that India's Constitution grants protection to minorities.
"Suppose a party says we will promote untouchability; that is absolutely offending. That must be struck down, that must be banned... Suppose a religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected under the Constitution... What is only within the framework of the Constitution (that may not be objectionable)," justice Kant said. SC advised the petitioner to file a "neutral" petition.