'Muslimeen' word in party's name doesn't violate principle of Secularism: AIMIM tells SC

AIMIM contended before the court that it has always aimed to protect the socio cultural and religious ethos of the minorities and the underprivileged. It said that it has not violated any provision of Representation of the People Act,1951 or indulged in any corrupt practice.

New Delhi: The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) led by Asaduddin Owaisi told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that merely mentioning the word "Muslimeen" in the party's name doesn't violate the principle of secularism or amount to appealing electorate in the name of religion.

The party has filed an affidavit in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Syed Waseem Rizvi, that sought cancellation of symbol and name allotted to political parties which are using name of any religion in their names or carrying religious connotations in their symbols.

AIMIM contended before the court that it has never asked its members to use the name of religion to ask for votes and its membership is open for everyone irrespective of religion, caste, creed, etc. It said that it has always aimed to protect the socio cultural and religious ethos of the minorities and the underprivileged. It said that it has not violated any provision of Representation of the People Act, 1951 or indulged in any corrupt practice.

The party also raised doubts about the credibility of the petitioner. "The petitioner is a former member of the Samajwadi Party (State Party in Uttar Pradesh) and had contested and won a corporation election in the year 2008 from the Kashmiri Mohalla ward in Lucknow. At present, as per reports available online, the petitioner is known to be close to another political party in the state of Uttar Pradesh," the affidavit filed through Advocate Abhishek Jebraj read.

The plea said that the 'language of pleadings as well as the unverified facts stated therein seem more like an attempt to create a non existing divide between two communities'. "While the entire petition is nothing more than a hate speech manifesto masquerading as Writ Petition, i.e., the language of the pleadings as well as the unverified facts stated therein seem more like an attempt to create a non-existing divide between two communities," the affidavit stated.