9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the immediate effect of the notification declaring JEIH an unlawful association under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Immediate Effect of the Notification: The petitioner, the Secretary-General of Jamat-e-Islami Hind (JEIH), and the appellants, the Presidents of Bihar Zone and Patna Circle of JEIH, challenged the Central Government's notification dated 10-12-1992, which declared JEIH an unlawful association under Section 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and gave immediate effect to the notification under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3. Provisions of the Act: - Section 3(1) empowers the Central Government to declare any association unlawful by notification in the Official Gazette. - Section 3(2) mandates that the notification specify the grounds and other necessary particulars. - The proviso to Section 3(3) allows the government to give immediate effect to the notification if it believes that circumstances necessitate such action, provided reasons are stated in writing. Notification Analysis: The notification cited the following reasons for declaring JEIH unlawful: - Statements by JEIH leaders advocating the separation of Kashmir from India. - JEIH questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. - Other undisclosed facts and materials considered against public interest. Court's Findings: - The notification did not provide additional reasons for the immediate effect, merely reiterating the grounds for declaring JEIH unlawful under Section 3(1). - The court emphasized that the Central Government must have distinct and additional facts justifying the need for immediate action, separate from those used for the declaration under Section 3(1). - The court noted that the reasons provided were either stale or did not justify the immediacy required by the proviso to Section 3(3). Legal Interpretation: - The court interpreted the term "to state" as requiring the reasons for immediate action to be explicitly communicated to the affected party, not merely recorded in government files. - The court referenced the case of C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, where it was held that reasons for an order must be communicated to the affected party to ensure transparency and fairness. Constitutional Considerations: - The court highlighted that Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees the right to form associations, and any restriction on this right must be reasonable and justified under Article 19(4). - The immediate ban under the proviso to Section 3(3) effectively suspends this fundamental right, necessitating stringent justification by the government. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Central Government failed to justify the immediate ban on JEIH under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act. Consequently, the part of the notification giving immediate effect was struck down. The court expressed no opinion on the validity of the rest of the notification, which was subject to adjudication by the Tribunal. The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition and civil appeal were allowed with no order as to costs.
|
