'Lotus Is Religious Symbol, Add BJP As Respondent In Plea To Ban Parties With Religious Symbols' : Muslim League To Supreme Court

The Indian Union Muslim League told the Supreme Court on Monday that the Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) should also be made a respondent in a plea seeking to bar political parties with religious names and symbols, as the BJP's symbol lotus is a "religious symbol".

"We have also filed an application to include a large number of parties, including the Bharthiya Janata Party because its symbol is a "Kamal", which is a religious symbol", Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Muslim League, told a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar. In its application, the Muslim League said that lotus is a religious symbol related to Hinduism and Buddhism. It also sought for 26 other parties such as Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal, Hindu Sena, Hindu Mahasabha, Christian Democratic Front,Islam Party Hind, etc, as respondents in the case.

"According to Hinduism, within each human is the spirit of the sacred lotus. It represents eternity, purity, divinity, and is widely used as a symbol of life, fertility, ever-renewing youth. The lotus flower is used to describe feminine beauty, especially female eyes. For Buddhists, the lotus flower symbolizes the most exalted state of human; head held high, pure and undefiled in the sun, feet rooted in the world of experience. Further it is submitted that, God Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva and Lakshmi Mata are also associated with the lotus flower in Hinduism"- IUML's application stated.

The PIL, filed by former UP Shia Waqf Board Chairman Syed Waseem Rizvi (now converted as Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi), has now added only two parties as respondents - IUML and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM).

During an earlier hearing, the Court had observed that the petitioner should not be selective in his approach.

Petition not maintainable : KK Venugopal on behalf of AIMIM

Today, former Attorney General for India and Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for AIMIM, questioned the maintainability of the petition. He said that no fundamental rights of the petitioner has been infringed and hence the petition under Article 32 was not maintainable. Also, the petitioner has not complied with the earlier direction to add all political parties with religious names, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, he added. ".He has impleaded only two parties with Muslim names", Venugopal said. He also said that a similar petition is pending before the Delhi High Court.

Dave also supported Venugopal to contend that the petitioner has not complied with the previous order. Refuting these statements, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the petitioner, stated that a large number of incorrect statements were being made by the other side. He said that the petition only seeks a direction that the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act and the judgment in Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen be followed.

The bench adjourned the hearing by four weeks asking the contesting respondents to produce the copy of the petition stated to be pending before the High Court in order to ascertain if the subject matter is the same. The bench also said that it will consider the preliminary objections.

Towards the end, the exchanges got heated up a bit,  with Dave saying that the petitioner is a BJP supporter and should join that party and with Bhatia retorting that "it is an unfortunate comment".

The ECI, in its counter-affidavit had told the Supreme Court that there is no express statutory provision under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 which bars the registration of political parties with names having religious connotations.

During the previous hearing, Venugopal had said that the matter should be considered by a Constitution Bench in view of the "far-reaching consequences".

He pointed out that Section 123(3) of Representation of Peoples Act prohibited not only appeal for votes on the basis of religion but also on the basis of caste, community, language etc. Therefore, parties like Telugu Desom Party (TDP), Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura etc., will also get affected by any order passed by the Court. Hence, Mr. Venugopal said, an application has been filed to implead all such parties. Dave had also raised objection and stated that parties like Shiv Sena, Hindu Jagran Manch and Shiromani Akali Dal were not impleaded. 

Asking the petitioner not to be selective in his approach, the Bench had stated then, "Mr.Bhatia, you also bear in mind the objections which Mr. Dave has raised. Still you think that others are also necessary, you join them(other parties with religious names). His only contention is that don’t select a particular religion. You may not join all parties with religious names. You can join one party of one particular religion, another party of another religion and so on on a symbolic basis. But allegation must not be there that you are going against one particular religion".

[Case Title: Syed Waseem Rizwi v. ECI And Anr. WP(C) No. 908/2021 PIL]