Petitioner Must Be Secular, Don't Be Selective : Supreme Court On Plea To Ban Political Parties With Religious Names

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the petitioner, who has filed a PIL seeking to ban political parties with religious names and symbols, must not be selective in his approach.

The petitioner must be "fair to everyone" and "secular" and should not give room for an allegation that only a particular community was targeted. The Court made these verbal comments after objections were raised that the petitioner was targeting only parties with Muslim names.

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing a PIL field in 2021 by Syed Wazim Rizvi, who subsequently converted to Hinduism and adopted the name Jitendra Tyagi.

When the hearing started, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, appearing for All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), objected to the petition and 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, Venugopal said, an application has been filed to implead all such parties.

“What is being raised is a matter of far-reaching consequences! Lots of parties will be affected. The entire democratic process which has been there for 75 years is going to be affected. Therefore, your lordships may consider referring the matter to a Constitution Bench", he added.

"That we will consider, whether to refer it to Constitution Bench or not", Justice Shah said.

Venugopal further raised questions on the conduct of the petitioner.

“Petitioner is on bail in a criminal case. He says he’s a businessman. He has not disclosed that there are criminal charges against him. He files it in a Muslim name, subsequently he converted to Hinduism. All this has been suppressed. This should be dismissed on that ground alone, according to me”.

The former Attorney General for India also highlighted that the petitioner has impleaded only two parties with Muslim names.

Petitioner targeting only community : Dave

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Indian Union Muslim League, supported the objection raised by Venugopal.

“Only parties with Muslim names are added, don't go against any particular community. Join every party”, said Dave while adding that parties such as Shiv Sena, Hindu Jagran Manch and Shiromani Akali Dal are not impleaded.

"So far as you are concerned, you are represented. We will hear you. If others are aggrieved....", Justice Shah told Dave.

Dave then stated that Court had directed the petitioner on September 6, 2022 to add all such parties as respondents. "We will consider it", Justice Shah repeated.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the petitioner, said that such objections are "very unfortunate" and "unfair".

Justice Shah then told Bhatia, "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".

“What is being told is that the petitioner must be secular”, Justice Nagarathna told the petitioner's lawyer.

Towards the end, the hearing got heated up, with Dave raising his voice to say, "I am disappointed that your lordships are not insisting that the order should be complied with".

"Mr.Dave, please don't raise your voice. We will consider the objections", Justice Shah replied.

"Last time also the matter was adjourned without considering the objections. Your lordships keep on saying the objections will be considered. When? When will your lordships consider? Your lordships are not inclined to consider", Dave retorted.

While adjourning the matter, the Bench, in its order said that that non-compliance of its earlier order(which directed the petitioner to implead all the parties which will get affected) would be dealt with and considered on the next hearing date.

"You must also be fair to everybody", Justice Nagarathna told petitioner's lawyer after the hearing ended.

Election Commission has filed a counter-affidavit stating that it has no power to bar registration of political parties with religious names. The top court issued notice in the plea on September 5, last year.