PFI Ban : Karnataka High Court Reserves Judgment On Plea Challenging Centre Giving Immediate Effect To UAPA Notification Against PFI

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved its order on the petition filed by one Nasir Pasha through his wife, as he is presently in judicial custody. The bench will pronounce the judgment tomorrow at 2.30 PM.

Senior Advocate Jayakumar S. Patil, appearing for the petitioner had argued that in terms of proviso to sub-section 3 of Section (3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, it is obligatory on the part of the competent authority to record separate and distinct reasons for bringing into force the ban with immediate effect. He would contend that the order impugned is a composite order and no separate reason or an order is passed in tune with sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act.

The petition states that in the year 2007-08, PFI was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and it was working for the empowerment of downtrodden section of the society.

Further it said that, "The Union of India has passed the impugned notification (dated 28-09-2022) by exercising its power under section 3 (1) of the UAP Act, this notification is subject to confirmation of UAPA Tribunal, thus the same is not questioned before this court."

It says the petitioner is aggrieved by the later part of the notification wherein this notification is brought into immediate effect by exercising the power under proviso of Section 3 (3) of the UAP Act."

The plea states that the Union of India has exercised its sovereign power arbitrarily on the basis of sundry incidents of crime to curb the fundamental right of minorities under Article 19 (1) ( C ) of Constitution of India. It says, "The organisation which was existing in several states, followed and benefited by several persons, declaring the unlawful association with immediate effect that to without specifying any reasons is arbitrary and illegal."

It is claimed that, "Giving immediate effect to such declaration has several underlying effects which gives unbridle power to law authority to falsely implicate any persons under the guise of membership under section 10, 11 and 13 of UA (P) A, even before confirmation order of the tribunal. The immediate effect further curtails the right of defence before the tribunal but also exposes every member, follower, sympathiser to possible criminal action, when effect is such grave and deterrent then reasons should be equally convincing and strong.

Reliance was also placed on the Apex court decision in the case of Mohammed Jafar Vs Union of India (1994 (2) SCC 267) wherein the court had set aside the immediate effect of declaration.

The plea prayed for setting aside the declaration notification to the extent of immediate effect.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union of India, opposed the plea by saying that required reasons have been provided in the notification to declare the ban and there is nothing illegal in this.

Case Title: NASIR PASHA v. UNION OF INDIA 

Case NO: WP 21440/2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate Jayakumar S. Patil, for Advocate RONALD D SA for petitioner.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General M B Nargund and Deputy Solicitor General of India, H. Shanthi Bhushan for respondent.