Case Stats
Citation: (1995) 1 JT 31: (1994) 5 SCALE 107: (1995) 1 SCC 428: (1994) 6 SCR 316 Supp
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3960 of 1994 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 1994
Date of Decision: 07-12-1994
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: S. P. Bharucha, J ; K. S. Paripoornan, J ; J. S. Verma, J
Final Decision: Disposed Of
Bench: Full Bench
Name of the Court
Supreme Court of India
All Citations of the Case
(1995) 1 JT 31: (1994) 5 SCALE 107: (1995) 1 SCC 428: (1994) 6 SCR 316 Supp
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=268314
Facts of the Case
Jamaat-E-Islami Hind was declared an 'unlawful association' by a government notification under Section 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, citing statements from its leaders questioning the territorial integrity of India. The Tribunal upheld the ban. The association challenged the declaration, citing lack of evidence, violation of natural justice, and constitutional rights under Article 19.
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the material used by the Tribunal qualifies as legal evidence.
2. Whether the actions attributed to the association meet the statutory definition of 'unlawful activity'.
3. Whether the Tribunal followed judicial standards of inquiry and fairness.
4. Whether the provisions of the Act and Rules violate Articles 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), and 19(4).
5. Whether confidential intelligence reports without source disclosure can justify banning an association.
Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(4)
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — Sections 2(f), 2(g), 3(1), 4, 5
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1968 — Rules 3, 3(2), 5
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 153A, 153B
Judgements Referred
No specific precedent cited; primary focus was on interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions related to fundamental rights and security laws.
Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized that classification of material as intelligence does not exempt it from judicial scrutiny. Actions must objectively fall within the statutory definitions of 'unlawful activity' to justify a declaration.
Ratio Decidendi
The inquiry by the Tribunal must be judicial in nature, and 'unlawful activity' must be established based on legal evidence. Reliance solely on hearsay and confidential sources without adequate opportunity for rebuttal fails the test of natural justice.
Final Ruling
The appeal was disposed of with the Court affirming the requirement of judicial scrutiny in banning associations, but did not declare the law unconstitutional. The Court clarified interpretation of 'unlawful activity' and upheld principles of procedural fairness.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
• Para 2–3: Nature and objectives of the association
• Para 4: Tribunal's finding and material presented
• Para 5: Legal arguments on evidence and natural justice
• Para 6: Government's counter-argument on preventive law
• Para 8: Legal interpretation of 'unlawful association' and 'unlawful activity'
Summary
The case addresses the declaration of Jamaat-E-Islami Hind as an unlawful association under UAPA. The Supreme Court examined the nature of evidence used in the Tribunal’s inquiry and whether actions attributed to the association met the threshold for unlawful activity. It emphasized adherence to due process and objective determination under the Act. While the Court upheld the validity of the legislation, it reiterated the necessity of following procedural safeguards and judicial principles before curtailing fundamental rights.