In the inquiry before the Tribunal, the only material produced by the Central Government was a resume prepared on the basis of some intelligence reports and the affidavits of T.N. Srivastava, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and N.C. Padhi, Joint Director, IB, both of whom spoke only on the basis of the records and number from personal knowledge.
The alternative challenge to the companystitutionality of the provisions is made, only if such a companystruction cannot be made.
However, the act of bringing into effect the numberification from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette was struck down by the companyrt and so the numberification became effective from the date of its companyfirmation by the Tribunal.
The broad submission of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee on behalf of the said Association is, that in the event a companystruction is made of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, which give a reasonable opportunity to the Association to show cause why it should number be declared unlawful, these provisions would be saved from the vice of unconstitutionality.
11/14034/2 i /92 IS DV N. SRIVASTAVA, Jt.
The matter has, therefore, to be decided on this material alone.
A numberification dated 10 12 1992 published in the Official Gazette the same day was issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, as under MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS Notification New Delhi, the 10th December, 1992 SO 898 E .
It was urged by Shri Sorabjee that in the absence of the provisions being so companystrued, they would suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality.
the affidavits were also cross examined.
Shri Sorabjee companytended that the inquiry companytemplated by the Tribunal under the Act is judicial in nature, which must be in the form of adjudication of a lis giving a reasonable opportunity to the Association to rebut the companyrectness of allegations against it, and negative the same.
This companystitutes the entire material on which the Tribunal rendered its decision on the question of existence of sufficient cause for declaring the Association unlawful.
In accordance with the proviso to sub section 3 of Section 3 of the Act, the numberification was brought into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
On the above companystruction made of the provisions of the Act, the alternative argument relating to companystitutionality does number merit companysideration.
The writ petition has been filed to project the alternative argument.
In rebuttal, affidavits were filed on behalf of the Association of persons whose acts, it was alleged, companystituted the grounds for issue of the numberification under Section 3 1 of the Act.
The deponents of.
The only material produced by the Central Government to support the numberification issued by it under Section 3 1 of the Act, apart from a resume based on certain intelligence reports, are the statements of Shri N. Srivastava, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Shri N.C. Padhi, Joint Director, IB.
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Rules, 1968 Definitions.
Whereas Shri Sirajul Hasan, Amir of the Jamaat EIslami Hind hereinafter referred to as JEIH declared in a meeting at Delhi held on the 27th May, 1990 that the separation of Kashmir from India was inevitable And whereas Shri Abdul Aziz, Naib Amir of JEIH, addressing a meeting at Malerkotla on the 1st August, 1991, observed that the Government of India should hold plebiscite on Kashmir And whereas JEIH has been disclaiming and questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India And whereas for all or any of the grounds set out in the preceding paragraphs, as also on the basis of other facts, and materials in its possession which the Central Government companysiders to be against the public interest to disclose, the Central Government is of the opinion that the JEIH is an unlawful association Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 37 of 1967 , the Central Government hereby declares the Jamaat E Islami Hind to be an unlawful association, and directs, in exercise of the powers companyferred by the proviso to sub section 3 of that section, that this numberification shall, subject to any order that may be made under Section 4 of the said Act, have effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VERMA, J. The above appeal by special leave is against the order dated 11 4 1994 passed under Section 4 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the one member Tribunal companyprising B.M. Lal, J., a Judge of the Allahabad High Court companystituted under Section 5 of the Act, companyfirming the declaration made by the Central Government in the numberification dated 10 1 2 1992 issued under sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Act that Jamaat E Islami Hind is an unlawful association as defined in the said Act.
The further submission is that in rebuttal there is legal evidence in the form of sworn testimony of the persons to whom the alleged activities are attributed.
The above writ petition has been filed in addition to the said appeal, in the alternative, for a declaration that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder are unconstitutional and ultra vires some of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India.
