Karnataka High Court rejects plea by SDPI challenging State government's decision to seal its offices under UAPA

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea by Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) challenging the State government's decision to seal its offices for violation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). [SDPI v/ District Collector and Ors.].Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the notifications issued to seal the offices of the party were issued under Section 8 of UAPA, and therefore, the party had an alternative remedy before a district judge."The notifications issued to seal the premises of the petitioner by the State Government are undoubtedly under the exercise of power under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section (8) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is statutory and necessarily to be availed of, in the peculiar facts of this case, as recording of evidence for the acts of the State is imperative," the Court said..SDPI moved the Court after the State government, based on a Central government notification banning the Popular Front of India (PFI) and its associates, sealed its offices in Mangalore after concluding that PFI was operating from these offices..Advocate Mohammed Tahir for the petitioners pointed out that SDPI was not one of the entities that were declared to be associates of PFI. He contended that the action of the State government in searching and sealing PDFI's offices was illegal. He argued that the State could not have travelled beyond what the notification delegated to it..On the other hand, Additional Advocate General Aruna Shyam M contended that SDPI's activities were directly linked to PFI, and therefore, the former's offices were sealed.Further, he argued that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before a district judge in terms of the provisions of UAPA and hence asked the Court to relegate the matter to a lower court.Deputy Solicitor General of India H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the Central government, concurred with these submissions..The Court, after observing that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners, clarified that mere existence of alternate remedy would not mean that the writ petition was not maintainable. However, since the case required recording of evidence for the acts of the State, the Court dismissed the plea, granting liberty to SDPI to place its contentions before a district judge..[Read Order]