SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The Petitioner (Islamic Research Foundation) seeks setting aside of the notification dated 17th 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.

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 organization/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 organization/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 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 organization 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 charge-sheeted, whereas no such charge-sheet 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 that law does not require that declaration of an association as unlawful and the declaration with immediate effect have to be by two separate notifications. He submitted that it is sufficient that the notification spells out circumstances, which necessitated the exercise of powers under the proviso to section 3(3) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in DEENDAR ANJUMAN VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2002 Cri LJ 710.

8. The relevant records with regard to the issuance of the said notification were produced in court in a sealed cover. It was contended that the contents of the files could not be disclosed as it would be against the public interest to do so and was exempt from such disclosure under proviso to