AIMIM Has Amended Its Constitution; No Ground To De-register It As A Political Party: Delhi HC
The appellant had filed the appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging a Single Judge order dismissing the plea for quashing the registration of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party.

The Delhi High Court upheld an order of the Single-Judge Bench whereby it was observed that the Election Commission of India does not have the powers to deregister All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) on the grounds as set out by the petitioner.
The appellant had filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing the plea for quashing the registration granted to All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musalimeen (AIMIM) as a political party by the ECI.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela clarified, “...there is no ground to de-register AIMIM as a political party on the ground that its constitution does not conform to Section 29A(5) of the RP Act.”
Advocate Hari Shankar Jain represented the Appellant while Central Govt. Standing Counsel Shashank Bajpai represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
AIMIM was founded as a political party in 1958. It made its electoral debut in 1959 by contesting municipal elections in Hyderabad. In 1984, candidates belonging to AIMIM were elected to the Lok Sabha from the Hyderabad constituency. Thereafter in the year 1989, AIMIM applied for registration with ECI. ECI accepted AIMIM’s request for registration as a political party and it was recognized as a State Party in Telangana in 2014.
The Appellant challenged the registration on the ground that AIMIM does not fulfil the conditions laid down under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act) as its object is to further the interest of only one religious community. As per the appellant, AIMIM does not spouse secular values and, therefore, the grant of registration was violative of Section 29A of the RP Act. The Single Judge dismissed the Petition. Hence, the instant appeal was filed.
Reasoning
The Division Bench noted that AIMIM had amended its constitution to conform to the provisions of Section 29A(5) of the RP Act. “We find no infirmity with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the requirements of Section 29A(5) of the Act are fully satisfied. Therefore, there is no ground to de-register AIMIM as a political party on the ground that its constitution does not conform to Section 29A(5) of the RP Act”, the Bench said.
The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare & Others (2002) wherein it has been held that the registration of a political party could be cancelled when the registration is obtained by fraud, where a political party changes its nomenclature of association, rules and regulations abrogating the provisions which conform to Section 29A(5) of the Act or intimates to the ECI that it is ceased to have faith and allegiance to the Constitution or the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy or that it would not uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, and any such similar grounds where no enquiry is called for on the part of the ECI.
The Bench found that the appellant’s challenge didn’t fall in any of the three exceptions as explained by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench also took note of the judgment in Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare & Others (supra) whereby the Supreme Court had explained the reasons for not empowering ECI to deregister a political party for noncompliance with the conditions for grant of such registration.
Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench held, “The learned Single Judge had accordingly held that ECI does not have the powers to deregister AIMIM on the grounds as set out by the appellant in the said petition. We concur with the said view.”
Cause Title: Tirupati Narashima Murari v. Union Of India & Ors. (Case No.: LPA 38/2025)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Hari Shankar Jain, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Parth Yadav, Mani Munjal, Khushboo Tomar
Respondents: Central Govt. Standing Counsel Shashank Bajpai, Government Pleader Vedansh Anand, Advocates Stuti Karwal, Soumyadip Chakraborty, SC Suruchi Suri