LexJAMAAT-E-ISLAMI HIND versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI HIND v. UNION OF INDIA DECEMBER 7, 1994 B [J. S. VERMA, S. P. BHARUCHA AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] c D E F G H Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-Sections 3 (1) and 4- Constitutionality of-- Nature of determination under-- Association declared unlawful by the Central Government by notification- Confirmed by Tribunal Materials before the Tribunal based on records and not personal knowledge of officers deposing before Tribunal-Sources of information not disclosed either to association or to Tribunal-Whether Act requires objective ·determination by Central Government-Whether proceedings before Tribunal judicial in character-Nature of materials required for determination by Trubuna/-Held objective determination by the Central Government requisite for declaring an association unlawful Proceedings before Tribunal, held of an adjudicatory nature, distinguishing it from opinion of Advisory Board under preventive detention law-Tribunal cannot addicate its function to the Central Government-Materials on which adjudication to be made must be in consonace with materials for judicial determination-Tribunal can devise procedure to examine the materials and decide on non-disclosure-On this construction Act, held, constitutional-Tribunal having merely acted on the version of the Central Government, order in instant case, held unsustainable. Constitution of India. Article 19 (1) (CJ-Judicial Review. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-Section 4-Natural Justice- Confidentiality and non-disclosure of materials Jn public interest-Disclosure of materials relied upon by Central Government, held, subject to requirement of public interest and ordinary rules of evidence- Confidentiality does not extend to Tribunal-Tribunal not to merely accept the opinion of the Central Government-Tribunal may devise suitable procedure to itself examine the materials-Such course would satisfy the m1mmum requirement of natural justice words and phrases- "Adjudicating" and "decide" -Meaning of held, have a legal connotation in an inquiry by Tribunal constituted by sitting judge of High Court-They are the essential attributes of a judicial decision-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, Section 4. 316 -• JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI HIND v. U. 0. I. 317 By notification dated December 10, 1992, the Government of India A declared the appellant-association to be an unlawful associa~ion within the meaning of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967~ Citing two instances, the notification stated that leaders of the appellant- association had disclaimed and questioned the sovereignty and integrity of India. The notification was referred to the Tribunal constituted under the Act to adjudicate whether or not there was sufficient cause B for declaring the association unlawful. The Tribunal confirmed the notification. The material before the Tribunal comprised a resume prepared on the basis of intelligence reports, and the affidavits of two officers on behalf of the Central Government, both of whom spoke only on the C basis of records and not personal knowledge; affidavits in rebuttal on behalf of the association; and the cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits. The association appealed from the order of the Tribunal, and also challenged the constitutionality of the Act and the Rules made D thereunder in a writ petition. It was contended for the appellant-association that none of the grounds on which the notification was based, even if proved, would constitute unlawful activity to render it an unlawful association under the Act. It was further contended that the material produced by the E Central Government was, at best, hearsay and even that without disclosing the source, disabling the association from effectively rebutting it. On the question of constitutionality, it was contended that the inquiry contemplated under the Act was judicial in nature, which must be in the form of an adjudication of a /is giving a reasonable opportunity to the association to rebut the correctness of the allegations F against it. If the provisions were not so construed, it was urged, they would suffer the vice of unconstitutionality. For the Central Government it was contended that the Act is in the nature of a preventive detention law, and that the opinion under the Act can be formed not only on the basis of legal evidence but also other G materials including intelligence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.