Turning down the foundation's claim that the Centre has not given reasons for its order, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said that there is material to establish that the "immediate action appears to have been taken in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order".
"The activities which the petitioner organisation and its president and members are alleged to have indulged in, would clearly come within the purview of unlawful activity and since petitioner organisation and its members are alleged to have been indulging in the said activities it would come within the definition of unlawful association," the court said.
"Thus, it cannot be held that the notification insofar as it relates to, the exercise of power under proviso to section 3(3) of the Act and the declaration of petitioner association to be an unlawful association with immediate effect, is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power.
The IRF had moved the court challenging the November 17, 2016 notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which had imposed an immediate ban on Naik's organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Justice Sachdeva also agreed with the Centre's contention
that the order was made after "application of mind" as there was apprehension that youths could be "radicalised" to join terror groups.
"The record that was made available by the central government clearly shows that there is material in possession of the central government, which necessitated the declaration of the petitioner organisation as an unlawful association with immediate effect...
The notification was issued by the MHA in exercise of the powers under section 3(1) and 3(3) of the UAPA, declaring the organisation as an unlawful association.
The Centre had also produced before the court the files and materials available with the government on the basis of which the decision was made.
"The action of the Central Government would be covered under the exception of Article 19 (4) of the Constitution of India. The immediate action appears to have been taken in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order," the judge said.
The court, meanwhile, made clear that the tribunal, set up under the UAPA, shall not get influence by the findings of this judgement and decide the issue pending before them on merit.
The court has agreed with the Centre's claim that Naik, by his speeches and statements, is stated to have been promoting enmity and hatred between different religious groups and inspiring Muslim youths and terrorists in India and abroad to commit terrorist acts.
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
