The Delhi High Court will hear on July 14 the Centre’s objection to the Popular Front of India (PFI)’s petition challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s March 2024 order, which upheld the five-year ban on PFI imposed by the Centre in September 2022.
New Delhi, May 22 – The Delhi High Court has said it will hear on July 14 the Central Government’s objection to the maintainability of a petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI). This petition challenges a decision confirming the government’s five-year ban on the organisation.
ALSO READ: NIA Opposes Custody Parole Plea of PFI Leader OMA Salam in Delhi High Court
The PFI has moved the court against an order dated March 21, 2024, passed by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal. This order had upheld the Centre’s earlier decision, dated September 27, 2022, which declared a ban on PFI for alleged terror links and activities that disturb communal harmony in the country.
A division bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter on Thursday. The judges remarked that the concerns raised were important and needed judicial consideration.
“Additional Solicitor General S V Raju (representing the Centre) has raised the issues on maintainability of the petition. On the next date of hearing, the issue of maintainability will be taken up and decided,”
the bench stated.
The Central Government had imposed a five-year ban on PFI, claiming the group had links with international terrorist groups like ISIS and was promoting communal hatred in India. The PFI and several of its allied organisations were declared “unlawful associations” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The banned affiliates and associated groups include:
- Rehab India Foundation (RIF)
- Campus Front of India (CFI)
- All India Imams Council (AIIC)
- National Confederation of Human Rights Organisation (NCHRO)
- National Women’s Front
- Junior Front
- Empower India Foundation
- Rehab Foundation, Kerala
The lawyer representing the PFI told the court that the petition had already been listed for hearing 14 times, but the court had not issued a formal notice yet.
The lawyer requested the court to send a notice to the Centre and ask the government to respond to the petition.
However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, representing the Union Government, strongly objected to this request.
“A notice couldn’t be issued on the request of the other side’s counsel,” he said, questioning the very validity of the petition.
Raju further explained that the tribunal’s decision was made by a sitting High Court judge, and hence,
“The petition was not maintainable as the tribunal was headed by a sitting high court judge and, therefore, the order cannot be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”
