E-Paper
PFI plea against UAPA ban maintainable: HC
Delhi High Court seeks Centre's response on PFI's petition challenging its five-year ban under UAPA, affirming jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Delhi high court on Monday sought the Centre’s response on a petition filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) against a tribunal’s order upholding the five-year ban imposed on the organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), concluding that it has the jurisdiction to consider a plea against an order passed by the UAPA tribunal.
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela said such a challenge is maintainable and asked the Centre to respond in six weeks. The court fixed January 20 as the next date of hearing.
“Accordingly we hold that this court has jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to consider an appeal against an order of the tribunal. Issue notice. List on 20/1,” the court said, while pronouncing the verdict on the maintainability of PFI’s petition. A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.
PFI and its affiliates were outlawed by the Centre in September 2022. The Union Home Ministry, besides banning, had also designated PFI and its affiliate organisations as unlawful associations under the anti-terror law for allegedly indulging in Islamic radicalisation and terrorist activities.
The ban was confirmed by a UAPA tribunal headed by former Delhi high court judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma on March 21, 2023.
PFI had approached the high court against the UAPA tribunal’s March 2023 order after the Supreme Court November 2023 had said it would be appropriate for PFI to first approach the high court.
The Centre represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, had submitted that PFI’s petition was not maintainable since UAPA tribunal was manned by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, and thus the order could not be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To be sure, Article 226 of the Constitution deals with the power of High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
The law officer added that the high court did not have the authority to issue directions to the tribunal, and the only remedy available with the proscribed organisation was to approach the Supreme Court.
However, the PFI represented advocate Satyakam contented that its petition under article 226 was maintainable, even if it was manned by a sitting Delhi high court judge, and cited the high court’s October, 2024 verdict in which a bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma held that judicial review under article 226 against the order of a UAPA tribunal was maintainable, only in cases involving national security.
