Back
Locks Down PFI-Linked Trust's Property, Upholds UAPA Clampdown
In a firm rebuff to claims of independence, the dismissed a writ petition by the and its affiliate , upholding the sealing of their Theni property under the . The bench, comprising Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R. Poornima , ruled on , that the organizations qualify as fronts of the banned , justifying prohibitory measures. This decision, cited as , reinforces the government's crackdown on PFI networks following its 2022 ban.
Roots of the Ban: PFI's Shadow Over Charitable Facades
The saga began with the registering FIR RC No.42/2022/NIA/DLI on , targeting PFI office-bearers for offenses under and . Allegations painted PFI as orchestrating a conspiracy to foment religious disharmony, radicalizing youth via fronts like the petitioners' entities in Theni and Tirunelveli.
Swift action followed: The declared PFI and its "associates, affiliates, or fronts"—explicitly listing groups like and —an unlawful association via Gazette notification on , effective for five years. Powers under were delegated to state authorities. On , Theni District Collector (cum District Magistrate) attached the petitioners' premises at Door No.6-8-12, Muthuthevanpatti, labeling it a PFI office. The Principal District Judge, Theni, confirmed this in O.P. No.126/2023 on , prompting the writ petition under .
A parallel forfeiture under remains under appeal, highlighting layered enforcement against suspected terror proceeds.
Petitioners' Defense: 'We're Not PFI—Unlock Our Doors!'
Represented by
, the petitioners argued the September 27 notification targeted only named PFI entities, not them. Without a direct
declaration against the trust (registered in 1993), no
order was valid. They slammed the Collector's actions—locking, sealing, inventorying movables by Tahsildar—as outright attachment, beyond mere prohibition.
"The District Magistrate could only bar use for unlawful purposes, not seize,"
they contended, seeking de-sealing.
NIA's Counter: Threads of Conspiracy Bind Them Tight
The NIA, via and , countered with evidence: NIA raids yielded incriminating materials; witness statements (L.W.67, 68, 109) detailed PFI indoctrination camps, oaths of allegiance ( ), and (proselytization) operations from the petitioners' premises, even linking to a murder. Pamphlets shared identical contact numbers; office-bearers overlapped. "Prohibition is attachment via lock and seal," they argued, distinguishing it from Section 25 forfeiture. State delegation empowered the Collector fully.
Dissecting UAPA: Prohibition, Not Plunder
The court meticulously parsed UAPA provisions. Section 3 enables declaring associations unlawful; Section 8 empowers notifying and prohibiting "places" used by them—encompassing houses, with District Magistrates listing movables, barring entry, and regulating use. Section 25, conversely, targets terrorism proceeds via seizure/attachment, needing Designated Authority confirmation.
Rejecting petitioners' narrow read, the bench held: PFI founders birthed these fronts across states, merging into PFI. Evidence proved affiliation—
"PFI... deputed its cadres to conduct
work... They were also involved in a murder case."
The order's prohibitions (no alienation, occupancy sans permission) squarely fit Section 8, with inventory incidental to sealing.
No direct naming was needed; the notification's sweep over "affiliates" sufficed post-delegation.
Key Observations
"These statements clearly show that the petitioners are also associates of PFI and are affiliated with it. Further, on perusal of the pamphlets of the petitioners and PFI, it is revealed that both the pamphlets have the same contact number. Hence, the notification issued by the first respondent covers the petitioners as an unlawful association."
"An attachment is nothing but prohibiting the petitioners from using the premises... The entire order is of a prohibitory nature and falls within the purview of Section 8 of the U.A.P.A."
"Section 8 of the U.A.P.A deals with the prohibition of the premises by the unlawful association, whereas Section 25... deals with the forfeiture of the proceeds of the premises which are intended to be used for terrorism."
No Relief: Seal Stays, Implications Ripple
The writ petition stands dismissed—no costs, miscellaneous petition closed. This ruling bolsters UAPA's arsenal against shadowy networks, clarifying that affiliate links via evidence suffice for premises curbs, sans explicit naming. For trusts eyeing social work, it signals scrutiny: shared phones or cadres can trigger bans. Future cases may hinge on probing "associates," fortifying anti-terror scaffolding amid PFI probes.
