A petition was filed demanding the cancellation of the registration of All India Majilis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) as a political party. On Tuesday (July 15, 2025), the Supreme Court refused to hear the petition, but the petitioner has allowed that he can file a writ petition raising large issues regarding the validity of AIMIM.
According to the report of Live Law, a bench of Justices Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to hear the petition. Prior to the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court had rejected the demand for abolishing the registration of AIMIM as a political party under the Representation of the People Act.
Who has filed a petition?
Tirupati Narasimha Murari filed this petition, which says that the declared objective of AIMIM is only to protect and work for the rights of the Muslim community, so it should not be recognized as a political party as it violates the principle of secularism.
On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain put the case in the Supreme Court. He said that AIMIM’s manifesto violates the principles of secularism, so it cannot be recognized as a political party under section 29A of the PR Act.
AIMIM talks about working only for Muslims, objection of petitioner
Vishnu Shankar Jain again said that how can a party say that it will only work for Muslims and not for everyone. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the Abhiram Singh case, which said that asking for votes in the name of any religion, whether he is asked for a candidature or for the party, it is a corrupt practice. He said that in view of this order of the Supreme Court, registration of AIMIM is illegal.
Vishnu Shankar Jain also said that earlier also some political parties were banned due to religious names. He said that the manifesto of the party also says that Muslims will increase Islamic education in society. He said that this is discrimination. If we want to go to the Election Commission and register a party on Hindu name and say that we want to teach Vedas, then registration will not be done.
What did the Supreme Court say on the plea of the petitioner?
On the plea of the petitioner, Justice Suryakant said that the manifesto of AIMIM talks about working for every backward class. He said that it says that the party is for every class of economic and educationally backward in society. Justice Suryakant said that some rights have been given to minorities in the constitution and the manifesto of the party says that AIMIM works to protect those rights.
Justice Suryakant said that the Constitution itself has given the right to protect the minorities and he says that the announcement of working for the interests of the minorities should not be objected to. The judge further said, ‘Suppose a party says that if we promote untouchability, it can be banned. If any party says that we will tell people what rights are there for them in the Constitution, then how can it be objected to.
Permission to file a petition without naming a party or person
Justice Suryakant told the petitioner, ‘You can be correct … file a petition, in which no particular person or party is named. There are some parties that rely on caste sentiments and it is very dangerous. If there is a broader perspective reform, you can raise general issues without taking any party … ‘