Any ban on political parties using religious symbolism should not give an impression that only one particular community was being targeted, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday after it directed a petition that wants two political parties, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), to be more secular.
“The petitioner must be secular. You may not join all political parties, but you can select a party of each particular religion on a symbolic basis. An impression may not be given that petition is against a particular community,” a bench of justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Syed Waseem Rizvi, former chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Shia Waqf, who converted to Hindu religion in 2021, and has since been accused in multiple cases of hate speech against Muslims.
The Court posted the matter for hearing on March 20 as the petitioner and Election Commission of India sought time to file responses to affidavits filed by IUML and AIMIM, which raised objections to the maintainability of the petition and the credentials of the petitioner, who apparently failed to disclose the fact of his conversion and subsequent conduct of facing criminal charges.
Former attorney general KK Venugopal appeared for AIMIM and said that if this petition was to be entertained, it will have bearing on the identity and functioning of a large number of political parties that use references to race, caste, community or language, besides religion, in their names. Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, states that an appeal by a candidate or his agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols, is a corrupt practice.
Listing out 27 political outfits that included Telugu Desam, Kannada Paksha and Naga People’s Front, among others, Venugopal said the petition should be dismissed. He urged the court to expand the scope of the petition by including even those parties that were are using connotations of caste, community or language and said: “This matter must go to a constitution bench. What is raised here has far-reaching consequences. The entire democratic set-up for past 75 years will be affected.”
Lawyer Dushyant Dave, appearing for IUML, said that the petition was “politically motivated” and objected to it mentioning only political parties that seek to represent Muslims. Referring to parties, such as the Shiv Sena, which were not added by the petitioner, Dave said: “Don’t go against a particular community.”
On September 5, the court allowed the petitioner to add other parties using religious symbols, which he violated by adding just two parties, he pointed out.
“You bear in mind the objections raised by the other side,” the court told advocate Gaurav Bhatia appearing for petitioner. “If you still think those persons are to be joined, you join them.”
The court kept open the question of referring the matter to a constitution bench and did not dismiss the petition on the ground that similar political parties have not been added.
In November, the Election Commission had filed its response to Rizvi’s petition and said that the parties in question were “legacy names”. “The registered names of those existing political parties which are having religious connotation have become legacy names, as they have been in existence for decades,” the election watchdog had said. “Whether the names of these political parties may or may not be disturbed is, accordingly, left open to the wisdom of this court.”
The Commission further stated that political parties that have religious connotations in their names also limit their electoral appeal to one particular group and it was not beneficial for the electoral prospect of the concerned political party.
The petitioner cited Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act that requires political parties to bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy to demand cancellation of names and symbols of political parties having reference of a religion or carrying religious connotation.
“India is known for its diverse religions but the belief in the religions should not go hand in hand with the election. The people must vote on the basis of anything except religion. If the candidate is elected on the basis of religious symbol or name, then the whole purpose of enacting Section 123(3) of RP Act, 1951, would cease to exist,” Rizvi’s petition said.