LexMOHAMMAD JAFAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
\
MOHAMMAD JAFAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
MAR CH 18, 11/94
[P.B. SAWANT ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.]
B
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 : Sections 3( 1) and (2}-
Proviso-Section 3(3)-Proviso-Sections 4, 10, ll and 13-{fnlawful As-
sociation-Central Government-Notification under Section 3(1) declaring
Jamatee-e-lslami Hind an Unlawful Association-Reasons for ban-
C
Notification given immediate effect under Proviso to Sub-section (3 }-No
additional reasons given for giving immediate effect to notification-Reasons
given for notification under Section 3( 1) relied on for giving immediate effect
to Notificatiion under Proviso to Section 3(3)-Exercise of Power by Govern-
ment under Proviso to Section 3(3}-Whether valid-Held Government D
should justify its power under Proviso by adducing proper reasons-For jus-
tification of immediate ban something distinct and different should be in
L-._
possession of Govenunent--Reasons should be cdmmunicated to Assocation.
-
Section 3(3}-Provis~xpression 'For reasons to be stated in
writing'-Scope of
E
Constitution of India, 1950 : Pait-III-Fundamental Rights-Article
19(J)(c}-Even temporary suspension of right is invalid unless covered by
Article 19( 4 ).
Words and Phrases
'To State' and 'To Record'-Meaning of and F
distinction between.
By a notilicati'on dated 10th December, 1992, the Central Govern-
ment declared the Jamatee-e-Islami Hind (JEJH)·an unlawful association
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) G
Act, 1967. Four grounds were given in support of the Notification viz., (1)
that the Amir of JEIH declared in a meeting at Delhi held on 27th May,
1990 that the separation of Kashmir from India was inevitable; (2) that
Naib-Amir of JEIH in a meeting at Malerkotla on 1st August, 1991
observed that Government of India should hold plebiscite on Kashmir; (3)
that the JEIH had been disclaiming and questioning the sovereignity and H
111
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 3 S.C.R.
A territorial integrity of India, and (4) that other facts and materials in the
possession of the Central Government \\'ere of such nature which it con~
siders to be against the public interest to disclose. The Central Govern-
ment also gave immediate effect to the notification in exercise of its powers
under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. However, no
B additional reasons were given for declaring the JEIH as an unlawful
association with immediate effect, viz., from the date of the publication of
the notification. On the other hand, for taking immediate action under the
said proviso it relied on the same reasons which prompted it to declare
JEIH as unlawful association under sub-section (1) of Section 3. The
Secretary General of the JEIH filed a Writ Petition in this Conrt challeng-
e ing the exercise of the powers by the Government under the proviso to
sub-section (3) of Section 3. In the connected appeal also the same con·
troversy was involved.
Allowing tl.e Petition and Appeal, this Court
D
HELD : 1. The Government has failed to justify the immediate ban
imposed under the proviso to section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1957. The part of the notification, viz., "and directs, in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of that
section, that this notification shall have effect from the date of its publi·
E
cation in the official gazette", is bad in law and is struck down. (123-C-D]
2. For justification of the immediate ban under the proviso in
question, something distinct and different which calls for the urgent step
has to be in possession of the Central Government and the same has to be
communicated to the Association. The need for communication of such
F
reasons is all the more because of the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 13
which visit with the penalty for being members of an unlawful association,
for dealing with funds of such association, and prescribes punishment for
the unlawful activities of such persons, respectively. (123-A-B]
3. There is no material w~irh makes out a case for immediate ban
G under the said proviso. The material is the same for ban under section
3(1). The first two grounds are obviously stale • one of 27.5.1990 and the
other of 1.8.1991 and they cannot justify immediacy on 10.12.1992 when the
impugned notification was issued. The language of the third ground shows
that the association has beeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.