The Delhi High Court on Monday held that plea filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging its ban under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is maintainable..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela called for a response from the Central government to the plea..The Central government had, on September 28, 2022, declared PFI as unlawful under Section 3 of the UAPA and imposed a ban on it for five years. The organisation was accused of indulging in 'unlawful activities' which are prejudicial to the integrity, sovereignty and security of the country..Subsequently, in March 2023, a UAPA Tribunal presided by then Delhi High Court Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma upheld the five-year ban. PFI moved the Delhi High Court against this order..The Centre had argued that the writ petition challenging an order of the UAPA Tribunal upholding the ban on the outfit is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.However, the PFI counsel had stated that a petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 4(1) of UAPA, 1967 is maintainable..In a detailed judgement, the Court ruled that while the petition challenging the UAPA Tribunal order is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it can be entertained under Article 226. Article 227 grants High Courts the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs to enforce fundamental rights or for "any other purpose". The Bench ruled that the role and the function of the Tribunal under Section 4 of the UAPA cannot be equated with that of a civil court. The Bench observed that under the UAPA, the Tribunal does not decide a lis between the parties, but merely reviews the government decision notifying an organisation as unlawful."In our opinion, the function and the role assigned to the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act is to decide the reference made to it by the Central Government by opining as to whether or not there exists sufficient cause for declaring the association as unlawful. As a matter of fact, the role assigned to the Tribunal is not to decide the lis between the parties in the sense a lis is decided by a civil court; rather, the function of the Tribunal is, in a way, to confirm the declaration made by the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Act," the Court said. .Advocates Satyakam, Talha Abdul Rahman, Shaikh Saipam, Arif Hussain, A Nowfal, Sudhanshu Tewari, Sanu Muhammad and Mansoor Ali appeared for PFI. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Rakesh Kumar with advocates Annam Venkatesh, Sairica Raju, Ankit Bhatia, Manasi Sridhar, Labh Mishra, Shubhi Bhardwaj, Sunil, Hitarth Raja, Shounik Chowdary, Aditi Andley and Aryansh Shukla represented the Union of India. .[Read Judgement]
