Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Centre’s Ban On Popular Front Of India

A single-judge bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the order on the petition filed by Nasir Pasha, a PFI activist.

Women wearing Hijab walk in front of the Karnataka High Court in Bangalore.

New Delhi: A petition challenging the notification that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs issued declaring the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates or affiliates or fronts as "unlawful associations" with "immediate effect" for a period of five years in the exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of UAPA was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, reported news agency ANI.

A single-judge bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the order on the petition filed by Nasir Pasha, a PFI activist.

For the petitioner, Senior Advocate Jayakumar S. Patil argued that the competent authority must record separate and distinct reasons for implementing the ban immediately in accordance with the provision of sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He would argue that there is no separate reason or order passed in accordance with sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act, and that the challenged order is a composite order.

According to the petition, PFI was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act in 2007-2008 and was working to empower underprivileged members of society.

Further, it said that "The Union of India has passed the impugned notification (dated 28-09-2022) by exercising its power under section 3 (1) of the UAP Act, this notification is subject to confirmation of UAPA Tribunal, thus the same is not questioned before this court," quoted by Live Law.

It came in the wake of allegations that PFI, the banned Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), and a number of other terrorist organizations had close ties to each other.

According to the government order, PFI has connections to the Jamat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), which are both banned organisations, and some of PFI's founding members are the leaders of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).

Jayakumar Patil, senior counsel for PFI, argued that declaring it illegal was an anti-constitutional action. He claimed that the reasons for declaring it an illegal organisation were not mentioned in the order.

In support of the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the PFI was engaging in anti-national activities and had collaborated with terrorist organisations that were encouraging violent acts in the country.

It was reported to the court that members of the group were inciting fear throughout the nation.

(With PTI Inputs)