The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, declined to consider the plea by the Popular Front of India (PFI) to overturn the central government’s decision to impose a five-year ban on the organization and its eight affiliates. The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, suggested the petitioner approach the High Court instead.
Also read- Supreme Court Urges Governors To Act On Bills Without Judicial Prompt (lawchakra.in)
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing PFI, was queried by the bench on the choice of not approaching the High Court. Divan responded,
“The court is right. I had advised Article 226 of the Constitution is available. But there are some pleas challenging [the ban] here.”
Despite the counsel’s reasoning, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the plea, albeit with the liberty to seek redress from the High Court.
The plea by PFI also took issue with the validity of the order by the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act’s (UAPA) Tribunal, led by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, which in March of the current year, upheld the ban. The Tribunal, presided over by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, a Delhi High Court judge, had affirmed the Central government’s decision to declare PFI an unlawful association under Section 3 of the UAPA on September 28, 2022. The organization was accused of indulging in ‘unlawful activities’ that are prejudicial to the integrity, sovereignty, and security of the country.
Also read- Supreme Court Upholds Transfer Of Gyanvapi Mosque Case Within Allahabad HC (lawchakra.in)
The UAPA mandates that no ban shall be effective unless confirmed by the UAPA Tribunal through an order under Section 4 of the Act. In line with this, in October 2022, the Centre notified the appointment of Justice Sharma as the presiding officer of the UAPA Tribunal to review the ban imposed on PFI.
The Supreme Court’s stance to direct PFI to the High Court underscores the procedural adherence to the judicial system for contesting government orders. This decision is pivotal as it underscores the judiciary’s process and the routes available for organizations to challenge bans imposed under the UAPA. The case continues to attract attention, highlighting the balance between national security concerns and legal recourse for banned organizations.