Jamaat-E-Islami Hind Vs Union of India

Petitioners: Jamaat-E-Islami Hind

Defendant: Union of India (1994)

Statutes Referred:

The Constitution of India

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Penalty for Contravention of an made in respect of notified place.

Cases Referred:

State of Madras Vs V.G Row, [1952] SCR 597

Dr. N.B Khare Vs The State of Delhi, [1950] SCR 519

Paul Ivan Birzon Vs Edward S. King, 469, 1241 (1972)

Facts of Cases

1. The appeal was against the order dated 11 april 1994 passed under section 4 of unlawful activities prevention act, 1967 by the tribunal which was constituted under section-5 of the act, confirming that the declaration was made by the central government in the notification dated 10 December 1992 which was issued under article 3(1) of the act which says that jamaat-e-islami hind is an unlawful association which was also defined in the act. A writ petition has also filed addition to the appeal, and the rules framed under act are unconstitutional and ultra vires of some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution of India.

Issues Raised

1. Constitutionality of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
2. Sustainability in law of the order dated 11 April 1994 by the tribunal confirming the declaration of the central government that jamaat-e-islamia-hind is an unlawful association.

Parties Contention

Petitioner

1. The petitioner has filed the suit against the order dated 11 April 1994 stating that the jamaat-e-islamia-hind is an unlawful association under the section 4 of the unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967.
2. The petitioner has appealed that the association is not unlawful. The charges of unlawful should be removed.

Defendant

1. The defendant has opposed the suit that the appeal does not have any legality and has also questioned the constitutionality of the unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967.

Judgment

Basically, an unlawful activity means any action taken or done and in this the action must be unlawful by any individual or any association. Determining the facts also constitutes that the association unlawfulness is declared under sub-section of the section 3.

• Sub-section (2) of section 3 requires the notification issued under sub-section (1) to specify the grounds on which it is issued and such other particulars as the Central Government may consider necessary. This requirement indicates that performance of the exercise has to be objective proviso to sub-section (2) permits the Central Government not to disclose Ordinarily a notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 circumstances, which require that it may be brought into effect immediately, it may be so done for ‘reasons to be stated in writing’ by the under section 4 of the Act. Section 3 requires an objective determination of the matter by the Central Government and section 4 requires confirmation of the act of the Central Government by the Tribunal. The nature of inquiry contemplated by the Tribunal requires it section 3 is issued by the Central Government, the cause shown by the association in reply to the notice issued to it and take into consideration. The entire procedure contemplates an objective determination made on the basis of material placed before the Tribunal by the two sides; and the inquiry is in the nature of adjudication of a between two parties, the outcome of which depends on the weight of the material produced by them.The inquiry contemplated by the Tribunal under section 4 of the Act is judicial in character.
• Ordinarily, the material on which the Tribunal can place reliance for deciding the existence of sufficient cause to support the declaration, must be of the kind which is capable of judicial scrutiny.
• Notification issued by it under section 3(1) of the Act, apart from a resume based on certain intelligence reports, are the statements of Shri T.N. Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Shri N.C. Padhi, Joint Director, I.B., neither of whom deposed to any fact on the basis of personal knowledge. Their entire version is based on official record. The resume is based on intelligence reports submitted by persons whose names have not been disclosed on the ground of confidentiality. In other words, no person has deposed from personal knowledge whose veracity could be tested by cross-examination. The Tribunal has merely proceeded to accept the version of the Central Government without taking care to know even itself the source from which it came or to assess credibility of the version sufficient to inspire confidence justifying its acceptance in preference to the sworn denial of the witnesses examined by the other side. Obviously, the Tribunal did not properly appreciate and fully comprehend its role in the scheme of the statute and the nature of adjudication required to be made by it. The order of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained. However the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act made in the writ petition does not survive.
• So, the court held that the unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967 would be constitutionally valid.
• And the order dated 11 April 1994 by the tribunal confirming the declaration of central government that the Jamaat-E-Islami-Hind is an unlawful association is not sustainable under law.

Rule of Law

The basic law of the unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967 is that under section 3 and sub-clause 1 of section 3 says that unlawful association is not sustainable under law.

Comment

It is clearly stated that the act or any other constitutional right cannot determine the association as unlawful. And the act shouls also be considered as constitutionally valid. The order further more will not be sustain under law.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken appropriate decision by validating the act constitutionally. And has also declared that the order passed by the central government that the jamaat-e-islami-hind is an unlawful association is not sustainable under law.

By Krishna Das