Verdict details: On July 15, 2025, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Surya Kant, refused to hear a petition seeking cancellation of the registration of AIMIM. The petitioner, Tirupati Narasimha Murari, had claimed that AIMIM seeks votes on religious grounds, which is a violation of the principle of secularism. Rejecting this claim, the court said that the constitution of AIMIM is not in conflict with the Constitution of India and it works to protect the constitutional rights of minorities. Justice Surya Kant, in his remarks, said: “The Constitution of India guarantees certain rights to minorities. The AIMIM manifesto talks about protecting these rights and working for the economic and educational development of the backward sections of the society. There is nothing unconstitutional in it.” The court advised the petitioner to file a fresh petition for general reforms in the political system instead of leveling allegations against a specific party or individual. The court also clarified that if a political party expresses its objectives within the ambit of the Constitution, it cannot be banned. The petitioner Arguments: Tirupati Narasimha Murari had said in his petition that the AIMIM’s manifesto and activities are a clear violation of the principle of secularism, as the party allegedly seeks votes by inciting religious sentiments. He had demanded that the Election Commission cancel the registration of AIMIM. His lawyer, Vishnu Jain, argued in the court that AIMIM in its manifesto talks about promoting Islamic teachings among the Muslim community, which is inappropriate for a political party. He said: “If a political party works only for the unity of a particular community, then it is against the principle of secularism. If I go to register a party in the name of Hindu, the Election Commission will reject it.” Supreme Court response: Justice Surya Kant said on Vishnu Jain’s arguments that there is no problem in teaching or following the teachings of ancient religious texts, such as the Vedas, the Quran, or other religious books. He said: “If the Election Commission raises objections to any text or teachings, you can go to the appropriate forum. The law will take care of this. There will be no restriction on the study of ancient literature or scriptures. There is no legal restriction.” The court asked Vishnu Jain to read out a reference to a 1989 Delhi High Court judgment, which gave guidelines on the manifestos of political parties. Justice Kant stressed that the AIMIM manifesto is within the ambit of the Constitution and its aim is the welfare of economically and educationally backward classes, which is in accordance with constitutional principles. The court added that some political parties rely on ethnic or caste sentiments, which is as dangerous for secularism as the use of religious sentiments. He said: “If you want reforms in the political system, then file a broader petition, in which no specific party is targeted. The court will consider it.” Implications of the verdict: This Supreme Court verdict not only provided legal protection to AIMIM but also triggered an important debate about the manifestos of political parties and their constitutional rights. On the one hand, this verdict made it clear that political parties can work to protect the rights of minorities, provided they remain within the ambit of the Constitution. On the other hand, he focused on the role of religion and caste in the political system. A major debate was sparked. An ex-post said: “The Supreme Court’s decision is a major victory for AIMIM, but it also highlights the need for clear guidelines for political parties on the use of religious sentiments.” Experts say that the decision opens a new avenue for political parties to focus on social and economic reforms in their manifestos, but it also raises the question of whether politics based on religious identity can be stopped completely? Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s decision is not only a legal victory for AIMIM but also a strong reflection of India’s secular structure and the protection of constitutional rights of minorities. However, it has sparked a deep debate on the role of religion and caste in the political system. As Justice Surya Kant said: “Our Constitution guarantees the rights of every citizen. It is the duty of political parties to work for the betterment of society within the ambit of this Constitution.” The decision is a moment of reflection for political parties, lawyers, and society on how to maintain the balance between secularism and democracy. The applicant is new. With permission to file the petition, this matter could become a subject of further legal debate in the future. Source: The Hindu: Indian Express: Times of India: Bar and Bench: Ex-Posts: