A special tribunal had on May 11 upheld the Centre's November 17, 2016 decision to ban the IRF for five years, saying there were sufficient reasons, including posing a threat to India's security, to declare it an unlawful association.
When the plea by the IRF on behalf of its trustees came up for hearing before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Navin Chawla, it declined any relief to it.
The court, however, kept the IRF's application for interim orders pending.
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, opposed maintainability of the IRF's plea challenging upholding of its ban under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by a special tribunal.
The ASG said the order under challenge was given by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and was akin to an order of the high court which can be assailed only in the Supreme Court.
The IRF opposed the Centre's stand and said its plea was maintainable in the high court.
It said Naik's speeches, based on which the organisation was banned, were being made since 1990 and were not sponsored by the IRF.
Therefore, no case or illegality was made out against the organisation on the basis of Naik's speeches.
The IRF sought protection of its trustees from coercive action as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was raiding its offices and questioning its members after lodging an FIR against Naik under the anti-terror law, UAPA.
It asked the Centre and the IRF to ensure all the relevant documents are on record before the next date.
The IRF in its plea claimed the "tribunal erred in observing that there is material indicating communal riot because of the speech made by Naik".
The organisation contended that actions of Naik and his aide, Arshi Qureshi, cannot reflect on the organisation and will affect the charitable and educational work being done by it.
The tribunal, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal of the Delhi High Court, had found that Naik had failed to take part in the legal proceedings before it and was "absconding and untraceable".
The IRF had first moved the tribunal against the November 17, 2016 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs imposing an immediate ban on the organisation under the UAPA.
As the tribunal had declined to hear the matter before February 6, the foundation had moved the Delhi High Court challenging the ban.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
