ORDER :

The petitioner calls in question a declaration notification dated 28-09-2022 issued by the respondent declaring Popular Front of India (‘PFI’ for short) to be an unlawful organization and bringing into force the notification with immediate effect.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be the President of PFI organization and claims that the said organization is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. He further claims to be working for the empowerment of down trodden section of the Society. What brings the petitioner to this Court is declaration of PFI to be an unlawful organization. The petitioner, by virtue of being a member of the organization claims to be aggrieved by the action of declaring the organization to be unlawful. Insofar as declaration of the organization to be unlawful under Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘the Act’ for short), the issue has been referred to the Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Act where it is pending consideration. What drives the petitioner to this Court, at this juncture, is the act of the respondent/Union of India in bringing the Notification of declaration of PFI with immediate effect.

3. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent/Union of India.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was no warrant to bring the notification into operation with immediate effect; there are no separate reasons recorded for the said purpose; non-recording of reasons is violative of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act; the result of bringing the notification into effect immediately results in declaration under Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Act and, therefore, is illegal. The learned senior counsel would submit that a fundamental right under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away in a perfunctory manner without recording separate reasons for bringing into effect the Notification with immediate effect. He would place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMAD JAFAR v. UNION OF INDIA – 1994 Supp (2) SCC 1.

5. On the other hand, the learned Solicitor General of India Sri Tushar Mehta would seek to refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel to contend that no reasons need be recorded. Reasons must be available in the notification itself and reasons, in fact, are available in the notification. The notification is into two parts – one declaring it to be unlawful and the other bringing it into effect immediately. Therefore, no fault can be found in the notification on both counts particularly, for bringing into effect immediately. He would place reliance upon the judgments rendered by several High Courts in (i) Abdul Nazar v. State Of Kerala – 1993 SCC OnLine Ker. 343; (ii) Islamic Research Foundation v. Union Of India – 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7489 and (iii) Muhammad Raisuddin v. Union Of India And Others – 1993 SCC OnLine Cal 122.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned Solicitor General of India and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that false for consideration is:

“Whether the Notification declaring PFI to be unlawful and bringing the notification into effect immediately violates sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act?

7. To consider the aforementioned issue it is germane to notice concerned provisions of the Act. Section 3 reads as follows:

“3. Declaration of an association as unlawful.—(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that any association is, or has become, an unlawful association, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful.

(2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it is issued and such