On Tuesday, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the promotion of regionalism by political parties to get votes and said that it is as dangerous for the unity and integrity of India as to promote communal division in the society. A bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Regional parties openly promote regionalism and ask for votes on this basis during elections. Is it not against the unity and integrity of the country?” The comment came when the court refused to hear the petition to cancel the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM). The court said that when many political parties are involved in communalism, it cannot target any one party.
Let us tell you that the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Telangana Shiv Sena President Tirupati Narsingh Murari seeking cancellation of registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), party of Asaduddin Owaisi. The comments made by the Supreme Court while hearing this petition are not only limited to the matter but also gives an opportunity to investigate the Indian democracy and political system in depth.
Also read this: Supreme consent on improvement in voter list is commendable
Let us tell you that the petitioner’s argument was that the constitution and activities of AIMIM are against the secular values of India. He said that AIMIM is only working in the interest of the Muslim community, which is contrary to the original form of the Constitution. In addition, the petitioner also alleged that AIMIM propagates religious texts, which is unfair to political parties. During the hearing on this, a bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymala Bagchi said in clear terms that such petitions should not be brought only by targeting one party or person. The court said that “you file a petition that is not limited to any one party. It is not enough to focus only on communalism. Regional parties also do caste-based politics and this is equally dangerous.” The court said that the problem is widespread. Improvement should be in the principles and conduct of political parties. The court in its comment has explained two important things- 1. Politics is not only a problem of religion or caste. The demand should be widespread, not against a particular party.
The Supreme Court, however, admitted that many regional and national parties in India promote religion, caste, community -based politics. This trend hollows out democracy from within and serves to divide voters on a social basis. The Supreme Court also made it clear that until a party is openly working against the constitution, there is no basis for ending its recognition. In this hearing, the Supreme Court advised the petitioner to file a petition that is uniform for all political parties and demand widespread reforms within the system if they really want to improve. The court also said that the rights of backward classes have been protected under the Constitution and working in the interest of weaker sections of any religion cannot be considered unconstitutional. Also, the study or teaching of religious books is also not a crime and cannot be blamed.
If we look at this decision of the Supreme Court, the things that are clear are that the judiciary is avoiding direct intervention in political matters, especially when the petition has been filed by targeting a particular party or person. At the same time, the Supreme Court is also accepting the need to improve the entire political system. In this case, the court also admitted that the regional and national political parties of the country often do caste and religion -based politics and it weakens democracy. But declaring a single party separately is not a solution, but there is a need for comprehensive policy and legal debate for political reforms.
If seen, this attitude of the judiciary indicates that such petitions should be filed in the future which demand improvement in the functioning of all parties, and not only a party and petitions should be filed in the name of communalism or religion. The role of institutions like Election Commission in India needs to be further strengthened in this context so that they can decide not to work against the values of the Constitution. It is also clear from this entire case that the judiciary of India will no longer prefer the petitions that are admitted only in politics from unilateral or prejudicial point of view. In the coming time, if there is talk of improvement in politics, then it will not only apply to religion or caste -based parties, but to every party that promotes any type of vote bank politics.
However, the Supreme Court’s comment on the petition seeking to cancel the registration of AIMIM should not be seen as just a court decision. This is a comment pointing to serious diseases of India’s democratic politics. What has been said by the Supreme Court hopes that public opinion will be prepared against the parties and leaders doing religion, caste, community -based politics in the country. The attitude of the Supreme Court shows that India now needs a policy debate and law that forces all parties to run under secular, democratic and transparent values.