Political parties relying on caste considerations dangerous for country, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its concern and discontent on political parties invoking caste and regional sentiments and termed it "dangerous".

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi said it is not keen to entertain a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission to deregister All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM), led by MP Asaduddin Owaisi.

A plea was filed by Shiv Sena’s Telangana wing, Tirupati Narasimha Murari, against an order of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the petition challenging the registration of AIMIM as a political party by the ECI.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain represented the petitioner before the apex court.

During the hearing, the bench said, “suppose a particular religious law is protected under the Constitution and a political party says it will teach that law, they will teach because it is protected".

The bench said it will be a great thing if political parties also invest in education, and they can establish colleges, schools, engineering and medical colleges.

Citing the party’s constitution, advocate Jain contended that clause 1 says that they strive for unity among the Muslims, and asked “why only Muslims and why not all of us".

The bench asked the counsel to read clause 1 in conjunction with clause 8, and also clause 9, and pointed at the undertaking they had given as a political party in 1989, saying that it takes care of everything.

“In practical life, suppose in an election you find a candidate of this political party invoking communal sentiments…there you are right. Any political party indulging, we will invoke the law," the bench said.

Jain, citing the apex court’s judgment in Abhiram Singh (1996), said the strict mandate was that no political party or candidate would ask for votes in the name of religion, and asked the court to see how this mandate is getting violated.

“Throughout the election, if you are asking for votes in the name of religion, the question is whether the judgment delivered in the Abhiram Singh case is being effectively implemented,” Jain asked.

The bench said that this judgment will be relied upon in an election petition, “where you find a candidate of a political party is indulging in arousing the religious sentiments to get votes, and therefore, such an act will fall within a mischievous practice”.

Seeking a mandate from the apex court against communal politics, Jain said there is a vacuum.

“You may be right, there is some vacuum or grey area, which needs to be filled in,” the bench said.

Jain insisted that votes are being sought in the name of religion and caste, and the only remedy is to file an election petition.

“Perhaps a neutral petition and not accusing any (political party)…which accuses each and every one,” the bench said.

Jain pointed out that in 2021, a similar petition was filed before this court, and the notice was issued on it, but that petition was withdrawn.

“Let us not confine ourselves to the question of communal party…there are some regional parties, and they also indulge in raising regional sentiments. Is it appropriate or in the interest of national integration? There are some political parties which rely on caste consideration, that is equally dangerous,” the bench said.

The bench suggested that it will be appropriate to focus on a larger and wider perspective, and asked the petitioner file a petition on the larger issue of political parties invoking communal statements.

The bench asked Jain to withdraw the present petition, and the court will give him liberty to raise larger issues seeking reforms in respect of political parties. Jain agreed to withdraw the petition.