UAPA property attachment: Delhi High Court says appeal against special judge order maintainable before HC

The Delhi High Court recently held that an appeal against a special judge's decision upholding attachment of property under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is maintainable before the High Court [Aquil Ahmed v National Investigation Agency Throught the Chief Investigating Officer].

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja rejected the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) preliminary objection that a second appeal against an order of attachment was not maintainable.

The NIA had said that Section 25(6) of the UAPA provides for only one appeal – to the special court. It also argued that Section 28 of UAPA separately provides for an appeal to the High Court against an eventual forfeiture order under Section 26.

However, the Court said that forfeiture under Section 26 is a distinct action requiring a separate show-cause notice under Section 27.

"Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA. In fact, a separate show cause notice is required to be given under Section 27 of the said Act, and upon hearing the concerned party, an order of forfeiture is to be passed under Section 26 of the Act. The two appeals would, therefore, be dealing with distinct stages of the proceedings which are final in their own stages," the Court observed.

NIA had also said that Section 21 of the NIA Act, which provides for appeal against special court orders before the High Court, would have no application to a seizure or attachment order under UAPA, as it would amount to providing a second appeal against the attachment of property.

It had also argued that even otherwise, an order passed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is an interlocutory order against which no appeal is maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.

However, the Court said Section 25(6) orders are final since they conclusively adjudicate the question of seizure or attachment.

"As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a likelihood of a conflicting opinion being rendered by the High Court if an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act is held to be maintainable against an order passed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, as a separate appeal is already provided to this Court under Section 28 of the said Act, the same does not impress us," it added.

Therefore, the Court held that the appeal filed by one Aquil Ahmed under Section 28 of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the NIA Act was maintainable.

Ahmed moved the High Court challenging a special judge's order dismissing his appeal against a June 2023 order of the designated authority, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The order confirmed the attachment of the fourth and fifth floors of a property at Ashraf Nagar in Pune.

Advocates Adit S Pujari, Prerna Mukherjee, Bhavesh Seth, Vibhav Rawat, Shaikh Saipan, Md Arif Hussain, Abdul Shukoor, Shereef KA and Mansoor Ali appeared for Aquil Ahmed.

NIA was represented by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rahul Tyagi as well as advocates Vikas Walia Jatin, Avinash Kumar Singh, Amit Rohilla, and Priyansh Raj Singh.

[Read Judgment]