* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment reserved on: 01^st February, 2017

Judgment delivered on: 16^th March, 2017

+

W.P.(C) 264/2017 & CM No. 1254/2017

ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners :

Mr. D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satish Tamta, Mr. Hari Haran

and Mr. Dhruv Tamta, Advocates.

For the Respondents :

Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC, Mr. Farman Ali,

Ms. Rajul Jain, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Mr. Vignaraj Pasayat, Advocates.

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1.

The Petitioner (Islamic Research Foundation) seeks setting

aside of the notification dated 17^th November, 2016, bearing No. S.O.

3460 (E) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred

to as the Notification) and a declaration that the ban imposed by the

notification is ultra vires Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of

India.

2017:DHC:1548

2.

The impugned Notification has been issued by the Ministry of

Home Affairs in exercise of powers under section 3(1) and 3(3) of the

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act), thereby declaring the petitioner organisation/association as

an unlawful association and the declaration is to come into force with

immediate effect.

3.

Mr. Dinesh Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner at the outset submitted that though the petition impugns the

entire notification, the petitioner restricts the challenge to the exercise

of powers under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act, imposing the

ban with immediate effect. Thus, this court is not concerned with the

legality and validity of the said Notification to the extent it declares

the petitioner organisation/association as an unlawful association.

4.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that there

are no circumstances mentioned in the Notification, which justify the

exercise of powers for imposition of ban with immediate effect. He

submitted that the reasons for issuance of the notification and

imposition of ban with immediate effect are the same, which is

impermissible. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme

Court in MOHAMMAD JAFAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1994 Supp (2)

SCC 1.

5.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

speeches and FIRs based on which the ban has been imposed

2017:DHC:1548

constitute stale material and such material could not have been used to

impose the ban with immediate effect. He further submitted that there

is nothing stated in the notification with regard to the organisation and

the allegations in the notifications are vis a vis its president, members

and employees. It is submitted that the notification is also based on

incorrect facts in as much as it states that Dr Zakir Naik has been

chargesheeted, whereas no such chargesheet has been filed till date.

6.

Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor

General, submitted that the said notification does not suffer from any

legal or constitutional infirmity. It is submitted that there is sufficient

material and reasons in support of the issuance of the notification. It is

submitted that the Central Government was satisfied that

circumstances exist which rendered it necessary for the Government

to declare the petitioner association to be an unlawful association with

immediate effect. He submitted that the reasons are stated in the

notification itself. He further submitted that this court in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 has to only ascertain that there is

satisfaction of the Central Government of such circumstances and that

the same is reflected in the notification. He submitted that this Court

cannot go into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons.

7.

Learned ASG further submitted t