The Delhi High Court reserved its order on the maintainability of the Popular Front of India’s petition, where the organisation has challenged the Centre’s decision imposing a five-year ban under the anti-terror law.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its ruling on the maintainability of the Popular Front of India’s (PFI) petition challenging the five-year ban imposed by the Centre.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard arguments from both the PFI’s counsel and government representatives, stating,
“We are reserving order on the maintainability of the petition.”
The PFI is contesting the March 21, 2024, decision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal, which upheld the Centre’s ban from September 27, 2022.
The Centre argued that the petition is not maintainable, claiming that the UAPA tribunal is led by a sitting high court judge, and thus its decisions cannot be contested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The additional solicitor general representing the Centre remarked,
“The tribunal was manned by a sitting judge of this high court and a high court judge is not subordinate to this court. Article 227 applies to subordinate courts.”
During the hearing, PFI’s counsel contended that a writ petition under Article 226 is indeed maintainable against the UAPA tribunal’s order, even though it comprises a sitting high court judge.
He explained,
“There is a provision to the expenses under the UAPA so the high court’s funds do not go to the tribunal. A separate expense has to be provided to the tribunal. The tribunal is able to regulate its own procedure, so the Delhi High Court Rules do not apply to the tribunal.”
He further argued,
“The powers of the tribunal are also specifically provided under the various provisions of the UAPA law.”
The PFI maintained that when the high court judge acts in the capacity of the tribunal, he operates as a tribunal, not as a high court judge.
The PFI counsel stated,
“Thus, the orders passed by the tribunal are amenable to the jurisdiction of this court. This PFI tribunal travels all over India. The court would not travel and go to different jurisdictions. This court has limited jurisdiction. The tribunal does not have jurisdictional confines,”
The tribunal is described as a separate entity established under Section 5 of the UAPA, 1967.
The PFI’s counsel added,
“It does exercise judicial power but merely because it exercises judicial power, it does not mean jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not available to this court,”
Also Read: NIA Opposes Custody Parole Plea of PFI Leader OMA Salam in Delhi High Court
The Centre imposed a five-year ban on the PFI due to its alleged connections with global terrorist organizations, such as ISIS, and its attempts to incite communal discord in the country.
The Centre has classified the PFI and its affiliates, including the Rehab India Foundation (RIF), the Campus Front of India (CFI), the All India Imams Council (AIIC), the National Confederation of Human Rights Organisations (NCHRO), the National Women’s Front, the Junior Front, the Empower India Foundation, and the Rehab Foundation in Kerala, as “unlawful associations.”
The notification declaring the organization unlawful stated that the Centre believes it is essential to designate the PFI and its associates, affiliates, or fronts as “unlawful associations” under the UAPA, effective immediately.
Following this, more than 150 individuals linked to the PFI were detained or arrested during a nationwide crackdown by law enforcement agencies in September 2022.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
