Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against ISIS Ban, Says “Terror Tag Linked To Activity, Not Religion”
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
Supreme Court dismisses challenge to ISIS terror designation under UAPA, saying terms like “caliphate” must be read in terror context. Petitioner told to seek remedy through criminal court, not writ plea.
New Delhi: On August 5, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition that challenged two government notifications that had declared ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and associated ideological expressions as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that the grievances raised by the petitioner, which included claims of wrongful arrest of himself and his son due to alleged links to ISIS, could not be resolved through a writ petition and should instead be addressed through proper legal procedures in a criminal court.
The Court categorically stated that it was
“not inclined to entertain a blanket challenge to the February 2015 and June 2018 notifications issued under Section 35 of the UAPA.”
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, who was appointed by the Court as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter, argued that these two notifications violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution (which guarantees freedom of religion).
She explained that the government had misunderstood and misused Islamic terms like “caliphate” and “jihad” by associating them with terrorism.
Gupta told the Court:
“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.”
However, the Bench rejected this line of reasoning. The judges clarified that religious words used in the government notifications should not be interpreted purely in their religious or theological context, but must be understood in the specific context of terrorism-related concerns.
Read Also: Photos of Laden, ISIS Flags Not Definitive Evidence of Terrorist Organisation: Delhi HC
Justice joymalya bagchi observed:
“When the notification used the word ‘caliphate’, it is in relation to terrorist activity. So it has to be read in that context.”
Further, Advocate Gupta highlighted that while the UAPA provides a review mechanism for banning unlawful associations under Section 3 through a tribunal, there is no such review system for declaring organisations as terrorist outfits under Section 35 of the same Act. She noted this as a significant procedural gap.
She also informed the Court that the petitioner had been arrested after filing this writ petition, and that his son had previously been detained by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on similar allegations of involvement with ISIS.
To this, Justice Surya Kant responded:
“He can always avail his remedy before the appropriate forum.”
The Court concluded that the petition was not really about questioning the constitutional validity of the 2015 and 2018 notifications. Instead, it appeared that the petitioner was trying to get relief in individual criminal matters using a writ petition route.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects ISIS Convict’s Plea, Emphasizes Stern Anti-Terrorism Measures
The Bench noted:
“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.”
Finally, the Court dismissed the petition and recorded its appreciation for the valuable legal support extended by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta in the matter.
Case Title:
Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan vs. Union of India.
Click Here to Read More Reports on ISIS