Supreme Court rejects plea challenging declaration of ISIS as terrorist outfit

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging two government notifications declaring ISIS and associated ideological expressions as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 [Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan vs. Union of India].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioner’s grievances, which included allegations that he and his son were wrongfully arrested for supposed ISIS links, could be addressed only through appropriate proceedings before the competent criminal court.

The Court clarified that it was not inclined to entertain a blanket challenge to the February 2015 and June 2018 notifications issued under Section 35 of the UAPA.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, argued that the two notifications violated the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 25 by misinterpreting terms like “caliphate” and “jihad” and equating them with terrorism.

She said the petitioner had contended that the declarations were made without any material or procedure akin to the process prescribed for “unlawful associations” under Section 3 of the UAPA.

“He says the word ‘caliphate’ is wrongly interpreted. That violates his fundamental right of religion. He has given substantial portions indicating what according to the Quran is the meaning of caliphate and jihad,” Gupta submitted.

The Bench disagreed with this reasoning, stating that religious terms used in the notification had to be interpreted in the context of the alleged terrorist activity, not scripture.

“When the notification used the word ‘caliphate’, it is in relation to terrorist activity. So it has to be read in that context,” Justice Bagchi said.

Gupta further pointed out that while unlawful associations are reviewed by a tribunal, no such mechanism exists to examine the validity of declaring an organisation as a terrorist outfit under Section 35.

She added that the petitioner had been arrested after filing the writ petition, and his son had earlier been detained by the NIA on similar allegations.

Responding to this, Justice Surya Kant noted that the petitioner had the option of seeking bail or other reliefs before the appropriate criminal forum.

“He can always avail his remedy before the appropriate forum,” Justice Kant said.

The Court concluded that the plea was essentially aimed at securing relief in individual criminal proceedings and not a constitutional challenge to the notifications.

“It seems to us that instead of a challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner and his son lies in approaching the appropriate forum,” the Court noted in its order.

The petition was accordingly disposed of with the Court recording its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Gupta.

[Read Live Coverage]