The Delhi High Court on Monday held that it has the jurisdiction to hear Popular Front of India’s (PFI) challenge to a tribunal order upholding the Centre’s five-year ban on the organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court has issued notice to the Union government on the maintainability of PFI’s petition.
A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said,
“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 bench has sought the Centre’s response and listed the matter for further hearing on January 20, 2026. A detailed copy of the judgment on maintainability is awaited.
The Popular Front of India and its affiliates were banned by the Centre in September 2022, and declared “unlawful associations” under UAPA for allegedly promoting Islamic radicalisation and terror activities. The ban was upheld by a UAPA tribunal headed by former Delhi High Court judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma on March 21, 2023.
Following this, PFI approached the Supreme Court, which in November 2023 directed the organisation to move the High Court first. Acting on this, PFI filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the tribunal’s decision.
Appearing for the Union government, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that PFI’s petition was not maintainable because the tribunal was presided over by a sitting Delhi High Court judge. He contended that under Article 226, the High Court cannot issue directions to such a tribunal and the only available remedy for the organisation was to approach the Supreme Court directly.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.”
Advocate Satyakam, representing PFI, countered the Centre’s objections by citing a October 2024 ruling of the Delhi High Court. In that decision, a bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma had held that judicial review under Article 226 against orders of a UAPA tribunal is maintainable, but limited to matters involving national security.
Based on this precedent, the bench concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider PFI’s plea.
