HC allows registration of AIMIM-Inquilab party

SEC had rejected application over AIMIM protest

Justice Challa Kodanda Ram of Telangana High Court on Tuesday set aside the State Election Commission order rejecting the application for registration of All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat party.

The judge also directed the SEC to consider the party’s application afresh for registration. The SEC should also take into consideration the party’s willingness to add Inquilab to the party’s abbreviated name AIMIM-Inquilab, the order said.

In an order issued on this April 13, the SEC had rejected the application of the party represented by its general secretary MA Quddus Ghori for the party’s registration. Initially, an application was sent to the Election Commission of India to register the party with the name ‘All India Majlis-Itehadul-Millat’. However, the ECI raised objection stating that there was a party with similar name in Telangana.

Hence, the party founders gave five alternative names out of which the ECI approved the name of ‘All India Majlis-E-Inquilab-E-Millat’. Subsequently, an application was submitted to the SEC on October 7, 2019 for registration of the party to contest the elections to local bodies. They submitted to the SEC that they would not use the abbreviated name of AIMIM (which is similar to the All India Majlis-e-Itehadul Muslimeen) and would use the name of AIMIM-Inquilab.

However, the SEC eventually rejected the application for registration of AIMIM-Inquilab stating that an objection was raised by AIMIM MLA Syed Ahmed Pasha Qadri. The latter contended that AIMIM-Inquilab was duplication of his party’s name. The party moved the HC stating that the SEC had taken a decision without giving an opportunity to represent its contentions.

It also pointed out that there were examples of parties having similar abbreviated names being permitted for registration like Bharatiya Janalok Party (BJP) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). When other political parties were registered with similar-sounding names (with necessary distinctions), there was no reason why such benefit should not be extended to the petitioner, the judge said in its order.

Source: Read Full Article