Supreme Court Upholds AIMIM MLA Mufti Ismail’s Malegaon Election; Says Dua For Poll Victory Not Religious Vote Appeal

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed an appeal against the Bombay High Court judgment which had rejected an election petition challenging Khalique’s election in the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly polls.

The challenge before the High Court had been filed by Shaikh Asif Shaikh Rashid, who had contested the election on the Indian Secular Largest Assembly of Maharashtra (ISLAM) ticket. The Supreme Court appeal was filed by Samajwadi Party candidate Shaan-e-Hind Nihal Ahmed.

Khalique had been declared elected from Malegaon Central after securing 1,09,563 votes, while Rashid secured 1,09,491 votes. Ahmed had secured 9,624 votes.

The election petition alleged that Khalique and his campaigners had indulged in corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act during the election campaign, including by making appeals based on religion.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for the returned candidate.

Dua for electoral success

One of the principal allegations concerned Khalique offering prayers for his electoral victory during political meetings and congregational prayers, following which members of the audience allegedly responded with “Amen”.

The challenger argued that the practice amounted to soliciting votes in the name of religion and that the response of “Amen” constituted a pledge to vote for Khalique, who is also the Imam of Jame Masjid in Malegaon.

The Bombay High Court rejected the contention, holding that although saying “Amen” could signify agreement with or affirmation of a prayer, it was materially different from making a pledge involving a formal promise or undertaking. The High Court held that praying for a candidate’s electoral success did not amount to soliciting votes on the ground of the candidate’s religion or exercising undue influence.

The Supreme Court has now upheld that reasoning.

The High Court had observed that: “The act of saying Dua (prayer) and the response thereto by ‘Amen’ does not amount to pledge.” It further held that a prayer for success in an election “neither amounts to exercise of undue influence nor soliciting votes in the name of the religion.”

Section 123(3) allegations

The election challenge also alleged that Khalique had invoked Islam and religious references during his campaign in a manner prohibited by Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, which treats an appeal to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion as a corrupt practice.

The challenger argued that the campaign material and speeches should have been considered cumulatively rather than as isolated statements. The courts, however, did not accept the allegations as establishing a corrupt practice.

The High Court also considered a speech by AIMIM worker Sufi Anees Quadri, who had questioned the propriety of seeking votes from Muslims when the candidate was an Imam. The Court held that while the speech appealed to the emotions of the gathering, it did not amount to soliciting votes on the ground of Khalique’s religion.

Remarks by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi concerning women candidates and his alleged comparison of Rashid to Yazid were also considered. The High Court viewed the remarks in the context of the accusations and counter-accusations exchanged during the election campaign and did not find them sufficient to establish a corrupt practice.

Religious organisations’ support

The election petition had further objected to religious organisations, including Jamiyat-e-Ulma and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, supporting Khalique’s candidature.

The High Court held that references to religion in political discourse were not completely prohibited and that religious organisations were not absolutely barred from participating in the electoral process.

It consequently held that the support extended by the organisations did not, in the circumstances alleged, constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act.

Pamphlets on women

Another allegation concerned pamphlets allegedly circulated by Khalique’s sister, Rafea Khalique.

The challenger alleged that the pamphlets called upon people not to vote for women candidates and prescribed how Muslim women should behave and dress.

The High Court observed that the religious beliefs propagated through the pamphlet could legitimately be criticised and that misogynistic views had no place in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law.

However, it found that the pamphlet did not refer to any particular candidate and contained general statements concerning the perceived role of women under certain religious tenets.

The Court therefore held that the material did not fall within Section 123(3) or Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.

The High Court accordingly rejected the election petition and upheld Khalique’s election.

Supreme Court dismisses challenge

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the High Court’s approach to the campaign-related allegations and contended that the material should have been assessed collectively.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby leaving the Bombay High Court judgment and Khalique’s election undisturbed.