The Supreme Court’s latest remarks on the dangers of not just communal, but also casteist and regional politics, should jolt our collective conscience. While refusing to entertain a petition seeking the cancellation of AIMIM’s registration, the Court rightly opened the door to a broader conversation—a much-needed national reckoning—on the perverse identity politics that have corroded India’s democratic soul. Justice Surya Kant’s words were precise and loaded with intent: “Let’s not confine to the question of communal parties… There are some regional parties. They also sometimes indulge in regional sentiments. Is it appropriate and in the interest of national integration?” This wasn’t merely a passing observation—it was a call for institutional introspection and reform. For far too long, India’s electoral landscape has been a playground for vote banks carved along the dangerous lines of religion, caste, and region. Political parties have repeatedly exploited the fissures of Indian society, not to bridge them, but to widen them, for short-term electoral gain. Whether it’s AIMIM, which wears its religious identity on its sleeve, or caste-based outfits masquerading as “social justice” champions, or regional parties that peddle sub-nationalism at the expense of national cohesion, the threat is real and pressing. No one is denying any community or group the right to political representation. That is a constitutional right. But there’s a line between representing marginalized interests and institutionalizing division. When parties—by name, constitution, or agenda—project themselves as defenders of only a particular religious or caste group, they violate not just the spirit of secularism but the very foundation of democracy, which demands inclusivity, not exclusivity. The petitioner, Tirupati Narasimha Murari, may have focused on AIMIM. But the issue isn’t about one party—it’s about a political culture that permits and promotes sectarianism. AIMIM’s constitution reportedly pledges unity among Muslims and prioritizes safeguarding their interests.
Fair enough, if it were balanced with an equal commitment to national unity and social harmony. But when the party name itself—All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen—clearly identifies a religious constituency, it understandably raises eyebrows. The same applies to other parties with explicit communal or caste associations in their names or constitutions. What about parties that bank solely on caste arithmetic? Or those that weaponize regional pride to the extent of undermining the national interest? Is their agenda any less divisive? As Justice Kant noted, such politics is “equally dangerous.” Regional chauvinism and caste polarization have arguably caused more fragmentation in India’s polity than communalism. Consider the way caste-based mobilization has distorted welfare policies and how regional parties often hold national interests hostage for local concessions. This is precisely why the Election Commission of India (ECI) must now act decisively and impartially. The Court has, in effect, given the ECI a green light to scrutinize political party constitutions, nomenclature, and conduct more stringently. Section 29A of the Representation of People Act requires parties to adhere to the principles of secularism, democracy, and sovereignty of India. This cannot be a mere formality. If a party’s name, charter, or declared objectives undermine these values, the ECI must step in—not just as a regulatory body, but as a custodian of the democratic fabric. The Supreme Court’s insistence that future petitions should focus on the “larger picture” is wise and balanced. Naming and shaming one party alone will achieve little. What India needs is a uniform standard of accountability—one that applies equally to parties exploiting religion, caste, or region. Let this be a turning point. Let’s use this moment to build political consensus for electoral reforms that demand secular, inclusive, and nation-first politics. Let the ECI develop a code that disallows any party from identifying explicitly with a single religious, caste, or ethnic group in name, symbol, or charter. Let us finally recognize that communalism, casteism, and regionalism are not separate ailments—they are symptoms of the same rot. The Supreme Court has shown the way. It is now up to the Election Commission—and indeed, the Indian electorate—to ensure that politics in India rises above narrow identity lines and reorients itself towards unity, governance, and progress. India deserves better.
