Delhi High Court Affirms Jurisdiction in PFI’s UAPA Ban Challenge - 2025-10-13

Delhi High Court Affirms Jurisdiction in PFI’s UAPA Ban Challenge, Settling Key Procedural Question

New Delhi - In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for challenges under India's primary anti-terror law, the Delhi High Court has held that it possesses the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by the Popular Front of India (PFI) against a tribunal order that confirmed the five-year ban imposed on it by the Central Government. The decision resolves a crucial preliminary objection raised by the government and sets the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the ban.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela decisively concluded that the High Court's power of judicial review extends to the decisions of a tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), even when presided over by a sitting High Court judge.

Pronouncing the order on the issue of maintainability, the Bench stated, "In view of the aforesaid, we hold that this court has the jurisdiction to entertain and maintain a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of the tribunal passed under Section 4 of the UAPA Act... we thus hold the instant petition to be maintainable."

Following this pivotal determination, the Court issued a notice to the Union Government, directing it to file a counter-affidavit within six weeks. The PFI has been granted two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on January 20, 2025, where the arguments will shift from procedure to the substantive challenge against the ban itself.

---

The Jurisdictional Conundrum: A Clash of Constitutional Remedies

The core of the preliminary legal battle hinged on a fundamental question: What is the appropriate forum to challenge an order of a UAPA Tribunal? The Union Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, vehemently argued against the petition's maintainability before the High Court.

The government's primary contention was that since the UAPA Tribunal was headed by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court—in this case, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma—a Division Bench of the same court could not exercise writ jurisdiction over its order. "A sitting judge of the High Court has upheld the ban on the organisation. How, then, can a writ lie?" ASG Raju questioned during the proceedings. He asserted that the Tribunal does not qualify as a "subordinate court," thereby precluding review under Articles 226 and 227. The government's stance was that the sole constitutional remedy available to the PFI was a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 directly before the Supreme Court of India.

Conversely, the PFI's counsel argued that the Tribunal, despite its composition, is a statutory body distinct from the High Court. They contended that its decisions are amenable to the High Court's expansive writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which empowers it to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and "for any other purpose." The counsel emphasized that access to justice through the High Court should not be curtailed and cited previous judicial precedents affirming the maintainability of such petitions.

The PFI had initially approached the Supreme Court, which, in November 2023, dismissed its plea and directed the organization to move the appropriate High Court first, leaving the question of maintainability open for the High Court to decide independently.

Background of the Ban and Tribunal's Confirmation

The case originates from the Central Government's notification on September 28, 2022, declaring the PFI and eight of its associate organizations—including the Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), and National Women's Front—as "unlawful associations" under Section 3(1) of the UAPA. The ban, effective for five years, was imposed following massive nationwide raids and arrests by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Ministry of Home Affairs' gazette notification alleged that the PFI was pursuing a "secret agenda to radicalize a particular section of the society," showing disrespect to constitutional authority, and had established links with proscribed global terrorist groups like ISIS and Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB). The government accused the organization of involvement in financing terrorism, targeted killings, and activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

As mandated by the UAPA, the government's declaration was referred to a tribunal for adjudication. In March 2023, the UAPA Tribunal, presided over by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, upheld the ban after examining extensive evidence presented by the government, which included witness testimonies and video footage. It was this confirmation order that the PFI challenged before the Delhi High Court.

Legal Implications of the High Court's Ruling

The Delhi High Court's decision to affirm its jurisdiction is a crucial development in the jurisprudence surrounding the UAPA.

1. Reinforcement of Judicial Review: The ruling reinforces the principle that decisions of statutory tribunals, even those dealing with sensitive national security matters and headed by high-ranking judicial officers, are not immune from the judicial review of the High Courts. It upholds the High Court's role as a primary constitutional court for safeguarding rights.

2. Clarification of Appellate Hierarchy: By holding the petition maintainable, the Court has clarified the procedural pathway for challenging UAPA Tribunal orders. This prevents a scenario where every such challenge would leapfrog the High Courts and land directly before the Supreme Court, potentially overburdening the apex court and depriving litigants of an important tier of the appellate process.

3. Distinction between Tribunal and High Court: The decision implicitly recognizes the UAPA Tribunal as a separate legal entity from the High Court, regardless of its presiding officer's status. This distinction is vital for maintaining the structural integrity of the judicial system, where a High Court exercises supervisory and writ jurisdiction over tribunals operating within its territorial limits.

The case, Popular Front of India v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 15810/2023), will now proceed to arguments on the merits, where the court will examine the legality and constitutional validity of the evidence and reasoning that formed the basis of the ban and its subsequent confirmation by the Tribunal.