Petitioner should be secular, fair: Supreme Court to Jitendra Tyagi in PIL against use of religious symbols by political parties

The Supreme Court on Tuesday told a petitioner who has challenged the use of religious names or symbols by political parties that he should be secular in his approach and should not selectively implead parties to his case [Syed Waseem Rizvi vs Election Commission of India and ors].Justice BV Nagarathna told petitioner Jitendra Tyagi (formerly Syed Waseem Rizvi) that he has to be fair when it comes to impleading parties in his petition.The remark was made by the judge after the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), through its counsel Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, expressed concerns that only Muslim parties have been impleaded in the petitionDave argued that Muslim political parties were being selectively impleaded in the matter by the petitioner. "We should not be considering Muslim parties alone," Dave contended while urging the Court to first hear the case on this objection. Justice Nagarathna cautioned Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, who appeared for Rizvi, that the petitioner must also be secular in his approach."Petitioner must be secular ... You also have to be fair and include everyone," she said.However, Justice MR Shah, who was heading the bench, indicated that the Court was not inclined to take up this aspect in today's hearing."I am disappointed that my Lords are not considering ...", Dave said in response."We will," the Court assured.During the course of his submissions, Bhatia told the Court that the case involved important Constitutional questions, and added that rejoinders may not be necessary prior to the final hearing.Meanwhile, the All-India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) party urged the Supreme Court to refer case for hearing by a Constitution bench. Appearing for the AIMIM, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India KK Venugopal submitted that several other parties will also be affected by the issue and that it would have far-reaching consequences.The Court, in turn, said that it will consider this aspect of reference on the next date of hearing, on February 20, 2023. Venugopal also echoed concerns earlier raised by the IUML that the petitioner, in this case, has not fully disclosed his criminal antecedents. In this regard, Venugopal pointed out that the petitioner is presently out on bail and was a convert to Hinduism from Islam..The public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former Shia waqf board chief, Waseem Rivzi, who recently converted to Hinduism, has challenged the practice of political parties having religious names and symbols in their logos.In his petition, Rizvi had contended that using religion for luring voters is strictly prohibited under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act. This Act prohibits a candidate or his agent from mixing political benefits with religious feelings, added the petitioner.The plea further highlighted that the democratic form of government is one of the basic structures of the Constitution of India which is not subject to amendment.In September 2022, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Central government and Election Commission of India in the matter.The Court had earlier allowed the petitioner to implead those political parties it believed had violated the Representation of People Act in the case. The IUML was one of such parties impleaded in the case. In a reply, IUML submitted that Rizvi has not come clean on his antecedents, and that the plea ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Restrictions on the use of religious symbols etc. do not apply to political parties as per the Representation of People Act, the IUML added, in its affidavit. .[Read Live Coverage of the hearing today].[Read order]