The Karnataka High Court has held while dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the President of the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the bringing into force the ban on it under the UAPA with immediate effect that the notification itself contains the reasons for the ban.

The Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, "A perusal at the notification under challenge would indicate that reasons are present in the notification itself. Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India on which much emphasis is laid on is also hedged with reasonable restrictions to be imposed in certain circumstances under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India".

The Petition was filed by Nasir Pasha through his wife. He claimed to be the President of the PFI which is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Though the notification is challenged before the Tribunal constituted under the UAPA, the act of the Center in bringing the Notification of declaration of PFI with immediate effect was challenged before the High Court.

Senior Advocate Jayakumar S. Patil appeared for the Petitioner while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General M. B. Nargund and Deputy Solicitor General H. Shanti Bhushan appeared for the Union of India.

It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that there are no separate reasons recorded for bringing the notification into operation with immediate effect and that it violates Article 19(4) of the Constitution.

It was submitted by the Solicitor General that the notification is into two parts, one declaring it to be unlawful and the other bringing it into effect immediately and that the reasons are available in the notification itself.

The Court noted that the reasons given to bring the notification with immediate effect are that the PFI and its associates or affiliates have been involved in violent terrorist activities with an intention to create a reign of terror in the country, thereby endangering the security and public order of the State and in the opinion of the Central Government, if there was no immediate curb or control on the activities, it is likely that they would continue to disturb public order undermining the constitutional set up of the country.

"In the notification itself sufficient reasons are indicated for bringing into effect the notification with immediate effect. Though no separate notification is issued, it is not a case where there are no reasons recorded in writing as is necessary under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act", the Court held.

The Court also found that the purport of Article 19(4) is that the Government is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions even on the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) if it would harm the sovereignty, integrity, public order or morality. "All that is found in the reasons recorded in the impugned notification", the Court held.

The Court also mentioned in the Judgment that any further consideration of the submissions made by the Petitioner would prejudice the proceedings before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: Nasir Pasha v. Union of India

Click here to read/download Judgment