The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on the maintainability of a petition filed by the banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the Centre’s decision to outlaw it for five years.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard arguments from both the PFI and the Union government before announcing, “We are reserving order on the maintainability of the petition.”
The PFI has approached the High Court against the March 21, 2024 order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal that confirmed the September 27, 2022 ban imposed by the Centre. The organisation was declared an “unlawful association” for its alleged links with global terrorist outfits, including ISIS, and for attempting to spread communal hatred in the country.
The Centre’s notification also extended the ban to PFI’s affiliates and fronts, such as the 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, and Rehab Foundation, Kerala.
The nationwide crackdown in September 2022 had led to the detention or arrest of more than 150 individuals allegedly linked to the PFI.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the Centre argued that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The government maintained that since the UAPA tribunal was headed by a sitting high court judge, its orders could not be reviewed by the same high court.
“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 only to subordinate courts,” the ASG submitted.
The PFI, however, contended that its petition was maintainable. Its counsel argued that when a high court judge functions as a UAPA tribunal, he acts in the capacity of a tribunal, not as a judge of the high court.
“The tribunal is constituted under Section 5 of the UAPA and has its own procedure, separate funding, and specific powers under the Act. Therefore, the Delhi High Court Rules do not apply. The tribunal is a separate entity, and its orders are amenable to judicial review under Article 226,” the counsel submitted.
He further pointed out that the tribunal travels across India to conduct hearings, unlike the High Court, which has limited territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court will now deliver its order on whether the petition can be heard on merits. The outcome will determine if the PFI can pursue its challenge against the UAPA tribunal’s confirmation of the ban.
