The Enforcement Directorate claims that SDPI is not merely an allied organisation but is directly influenced, funded, and controlled by the PFI.
Published Mar 19, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 19, 2025 | 8:00 AM
SDPI has been steadily gaining ground in local pockets and is now gearing up to contest the upcoming assembly elections independently.
Synopsis: The arrest of MK Faizy, chief of SDPI, and the ED’s subsequent raids on multiple locations across the country have raised the question of whether the party would be banned in the country.
The Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) recent arrest of MK Faizy, the national president of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the political arm of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI), and the subsequent nationwide raids have reignited a debate on whether the Centre could ban SDPI despite its status as a recognised political party.
In 2022, when the PFI and its affiliated organisations were declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), SDPI managed to evade the ban, citing its legitimacy as a registered political entity. However, fresh revelations from the ED’s money laundering probe have once again fuelled demands for banning it.
The central agency claimed that SDPI was not merely an allied organisation but was directly influenced, funded, and controlled by the PFI. Documents seized during a 2020 raid allegedly established deep financial and structural ties between the two groups, with PFI even playing a role in the SDPI’s candidate selection process.
Amid these legal troubles, SDPI’s political influence in Kerala has been a critical aspect. The state, considered one of its strongest bastions, has witnessed widespread protests against the Centre’s actions.
Beyond the immediate question of a ban, a more pressing issue emerges, how significant is SDPI’s political presence in Kerala? The party has been steadily gaining ground in local pockets and is now gearing up to contest the upcoming Assembly elections independently.
The SDPI, established on 21 June 2009, and registered with the Election Commission on 13 April 2010, has established its influence in certain local body areas, a reality that cannot be overlooked.
Highlighting SDPI’s electoral strength, SDPI Kerala State President CP Abdul Lateef noted that the party has 103 elected representatives in Kerala’s local bodies and over 700 nationwide.
“In Uttar Pradesh, we have representatives in district and gram panchayats, in Jharkhand, we hold positions in various district panchayats. In Tamil Nadu, we govern seven panchayats independently while sharing power with the Congress in others,” he said.
In Karnataka, the SDPI has around 238 local body representatives, including a former Standing Committee Chairperson in Bengaluru Corporation.
“The people at the grassroots level support SDPI, but the media deliberately downplays our activities,” Lateef told South First.
Comparing Kerala to Tamil Nadu, he said, “In Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister MK Stalin participates in SDPI events because they stand united against fascism. But in Kerala, the CPI(M) refuses to directly criticise the RSS or Modi,” he remarked.
Lateef confirmed that SDPI has not yet decided to support any front, as discussions are still ongoing. However, he emphasised that the party will contest more seats independently.
Political analyst Sreejith Panicker told South First that, ”SDPI has been expanding its presence, particularly at the local body level, with the long-term goal of entering the state Assembly. In the past, it has shifted its support between the UDF and LDF based on which front had the best chance of defeating the BJP.”
Panicker cited the Nemom result. “The CPI(M) was the strongest contender against the BJP, so the SDPI backed them. In the recent Palakkad bypolls, they supported the Congress, as it was the better-positioned party to challenge the BJP. It’s also interesting that the CPI(M) has recently been openly terming the SDPI communal.”
In the 2016 Assembly election, Nemom in the Thiruvananthapuram district had elected O Rajagopal of the BJP. The CPI(M) captured the seat in 2021.
Panicker further stated that neither the CPI(M) nor the Congress would allow an open merger of the SDPI with them, as it could damage their prospects and invite allegations of communal alignment. “Any collaboration, if it happens, would likely be discreet,” he added.
SDPI Moovattupuzha area president Abdul Latheef expressed confidence that the party would gain more seats in the upcoming polls. Elections to local bodies are to be held in Kerala soon.
“We have always supported parties that resist fascism, and we will continue to do so,” he said.
Former state president Ashraf Moulavi emphasised the party’s commitment to constitutional values while criticising the BJP and RSS.
“Our focus remains on improving our electoral performance. We operate within the Indian Constitution, but the RSS and the government under its influence act beyond constitutional limits. A ban on SDPI is legally impossible, yet they may attempt it,” he told South First.
Althaf Meharoob, an active SDPI member from Moovattupuzha told South First that the ”BJP is not just targeting SDPI leaders in Kerala but also strongholds across India. Our protests are nationwide, and despite being led by SDPI, they are supported by writers, activists, and the common people,” he said.
Ansari Enathu, SDPI’s media coordinator, detailed the party’s protest strategies.
“We organised massive demonstrations in Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, and Kozhikode against the recent ED raids. Similar programmes have been held in Kannur, Kozhikode, and Kasaragod, with more scheduled. Our social media campaigns are also gaining momentum,” he said.
CP Abdul Lateef told South First that the party does not anticipate a ban, as it is fundamentally different from the banned PFI.
“SDPI is a registered political party with elected representatives across the country. We actively participate in the democratic process and adhere to the rules and regulations of the Election Commission. We even contested the last Delhi Assembly elections,” he stated.
He argued that any ban on a political party requires concrete evidence. “SDPI only intervenes in political issues democratically. The difference is that we take up issues that mainstream parties often sideline.”
He linked the recent raids and national narrative against SDPI to the party’s strong opposition to the Centre’s Waqf Amendment Bill.
“This Bill is not just anti-Muslim but also anti-social. Waqf properties benefit all communities, not just Muslims. In Kerala, Farooq College is a prime example, it operates on waqf land and serves students and faculty from all backgrounds. The Centre is targeting us because we staged nationwide protests against its attempt to control waqf properties,” he said.
Criticising the ED, he claimed it has become a political tool for the BJP.
“Even the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the low conviction rate under PMLA — only 40 convictions in 5,297 cases between 2014 and 2024 — questioning the quality of prosecution and evidence. The same tool was used against leaders like P Chidambaram and DK Shivakumar,” he added.
Supreme Court lawyer Babila Ummer Khan told South First that ”while the ECI can register political parties, it lacks the authority to de-register them. The Supreme Court, in the Pravasai Bhilai Sanghatan vs Union of India (2014) case, had directed the Law Commission to examine whether the ECI should have such powers in cases of hate speech.
However, the commission’s 267th report remained silent on the matter.
Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, governs party registration but does not include provisions for de-registration. Although the ECI has repeatedly sought this power—in 1994, 2004, and 2016—it has not been granted,” she said.
A senior state Election Commission official told South First that state bodies lack de-registration powers. However, the Supreme Court, in Indian National Congress vs Institute of Social Welfare (2002), allowed the ECI to de-register parties under specific conditions: if a party secured registration through fraud, failed to update the ECI on key details, or was declared illegal under laws like the UAPA.
While the PFI faced a ban, similar allegations against its political wing, the SDPI, would require strong evidence for action by the ECI.
“Banning a political organisation is not a straightforward process for several reasons. First, it sets a dangerous precedent, as any ruling party could use it to suppress opposition,” Panicker said.
“Unlike the ban on PFI, this would require stronger justification and evidence, with the ECI also needing to approve it,” he added.
Election Commission officials indicated that the ED chargesheet could determine the future of the SDPI. The ED is claimed to have evidence linking SDPI to hawala funding through the banned PFI.
Given that political parties must pledge allegiance to the Constitution, authorities argue that SDPI’s shared leadership and cadre with PFI could challenge its legitimacy.
Meanwhile, Abdul Lateef accused both the CPI(M) and Congress of fueling the perception that SDPI is an extremist organisation.
“Initially, the BJP built this narrative, but later, the CPI(M) adopted it. The CPI(M) hopes to attract Hindutva votes in Kerala, but this strategy will backfire,” he opined.
He pointed out that SDPI ensures diverse representation. “Unlike the IUML, which has ‘Muslim’ in its name, our 25-member state committee includes representatives from various religions, Dalits, and women in key positions. Our policies are shaped by collective opinions. How can we be labeled as an extremist party?” he asked.
“Even CPI(M) leader P Jayarajan admitted that the CPI(M) had held discussions with the RSS. This exposes who is truly aligning with fascism. The recent ‘breakfast meeting’ between Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman should have been a transparent discussion about Kerala’s demands, not a secretive event,” he said.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
