NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by controversial television evangelist Zakir Naik in 2013 for clubbing multiple first information reports (FIRs) lodged against him in Maharashtra, Karnataka and other states over alleged hate speech, arguing that Naik is a “fugitive” and does not deserve India’s highest court’s indulgence.
Representing the Maharashtra government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta raised an objection regarding the maintainability of Naik’s petition, pointing out that even the Supreme Court registry has flagged a procedural defect -- that Naik’s signature is missing from his petition.
“Question is whether Naik, who has been declared a fugitive, can file an Article 32 petition (for enforcement of fundamental rights) for such relief. A person who is declared a fugitive by the court of law, how can he maintain an Article 32 petition?” Mehta asked before a bench led by justice Abhay S Oka.
The bench, which also comprised justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, replied that the state was at liberty to raise all their preliminary objections in the affidavit to be filed, but the SG pointed out that the procedural lapses in Naik’s petition were flagged by the Supreme Court registry itself.
“The defect has been pointed out by the registry in its office report. Let him come here and sign the petition first. He is a fugitive after all...the registry has raised this objection. Can your lordships waive that objection?” Mehta asked.
{{/usCountry}}“The defect has been pointed out by the registry in its office report. Let him come here and sign the petition first. He is a fugitive after all...the registry has raised this objection. Can your lordships waive that objection?” Mehta asked.
{{/usCountry}}Countering Mehta’s contentions, Naik’s lawyer S Hariharan said that no court, domestic or international, has declared Naik a fugitive. “Where is a court order declaring my client fugitive? There is no such order...In so far as clubbing of cases is concerned, there were around 50 cases initially which have now come down to four. If this court so desires and permits, we can withdraw it from this court and move the jurisdictional high court,” Hariharan added. However, senior counsel Aditya Sondhi, also representing Naik, sought time to decide on the future course of action.
The bench then said that the state of Maharashtra should file its affidavit raising all the objections it has, adding: “There are hundreds of cases we hear, which are in defective category. We grant relief also... We are not waiving any objection. We are saying that since your counter is ready, you file it. The registry will accept it.”
It has scheduled the matter for further hearing on October 26.
Naik faces numerous legal challenges in India, including cases of hate speech and for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. He is also wanted in India on charges of money laundering and delivering hate speeches that allegedly promote enmity and hatred between religious communities.
Naik fled India in 2016, shortly after terrorists responsible for an attack at a cafe in Dhaka, Bangladesh, claimed to be inspired by him. Following this, the Indian government banned Naik and his organisation, the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), for five years in November 2016. He is currently residing in Malaysia, where he has been granted permanent residency. Initially, he moved to Saudi Arabia before securing residency in Malaysia under the administration of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad. His continued presence in Malaysia has also strained diplomatic relations between India and Malaysia, as India has repeatedly requested Naik’s extradition to face charges of money laundering and incitement to extremism. He recently travelled to Pakistan.
In March 2022, a tribunal under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act upheld the Indian government’s 2021 decision to declare the Islamic Research Foundation an unlawful association. According to the tribunal, there were sufficient grounds to support the government’s decision. The Centre argued that IRF, along with its president and members, engaged in activities that were inflammatory and posed a threat to the secular fabric of India. The notification by the government emphasised that the divisive ideology promoted by the IRF could incite disaffection against the country and disrupt harmony between different religious communities.