SC rejects plea challenging declaration of ISIS as terrorist organisation

The bench noted that the petitioner's grievances could be addressed only through appropriate proceedings before the competent criminal court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging two government notifications declaring the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and associated ideological expressions as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.

 

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition filed by Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan.

 

Petitioner alleged wrongful arrest

 

The petitioner claimed that he and his son were wrongfully arrested for alleged links to ISIS. The bench, however, noted that these grievances could only be addressed through appropriate proceedings before the competent criminal court.

 

The court also clarified that it was not inclined to entertain a blanket challenge to the government notifications dated February 2015 and June 2018, issued under Section 35 of the UAPA.

 

 

Religious terms and constitutional rights

 

Amicus curiae, senior advocate Mukta Gupta, submitted that the two notifications violated the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution by misinterpreting religious terms such as 'caliphate' and 'jihad', equating them with terrorism.

 

She argued that the declarations lacked supporting material or adherence to any procedure akin to that prescribed for declaring “unlawful associations” under Section 3 of the UAPA.

 

“He says the word ‘caliphate’ is wrongly interpreted. That violates his fundamental right of religion. He has given substantial portions indicating what, according to the Quran, is the meaning of caliphate and jihad,” Gupta submitted.

 

However, the bench rejected this argument, stating that such terms must be interpreted in the context of the alleged terrorist activity and not purely from a religious or scriptural standpoint.

 

“When the notification used the word ‘caliphate’, it is in relation to terrorist activity. So it has to be read in that context,” Justice Bagchi observed.

 

No mechanism to review terrorist declarations under Section 35

 

Gupta further highlighted that while the UAPA provides for a tribunal to review the banning of unlawful associations, there is no equivalent review mechanism under Section 35, which governs the designation of terrorist organisations.

 

She also informed the court that the petitioner had been arrested after filing the writ petition, and that his son had previously been detained by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on similar allegations.

 

In response, Justice Surya Kant noted that the petitioner could pursue bail or other legal remedies through the appropriate criminal forum. “He can always avail his remedy before the appropriate forum,” he said.

 

Plea not a constitutional challenge

 

The bench concluded that the petition appeared to be an attempt to secure relief in ongoing individual criminal proceedings, rather than a genuine constitutional challenge to the notifications.

 

“It seems to us that instead of a challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner and his son lies in approaching the appropriate forum,” the court said in its order, while disposing of the petition.