74th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra80229286942849 Tamil Nadu2869415762235 Delhi2633410315708 Gujarat19119130111190 Rajasthan100847359218 Uttar Pradesh97335648257 Madhya Pradesh89965878384 West Bengal73032912366 Karnataka4835169357 Bihar4598223329 Andhra Pradesh4250256573 Haryana3597120924 Telangana32901627113 Jammu and Kashmir3142104835 Odisha247814819 Punjab2415204347 Assam19894434 Kerala170071215 Uttarakhand115328610 Jharkhand7642975 Chhatisgarh6781892 Tripura6221730 Himachal Pradesh3691636 Chandigarh3022225 Goa126570 Manipur124110 Puducherry90330 Nagaland8000 Arunachal Pradesh3710 Meghalaya33131 Mizoram1710 Sikkim200
Nation Current Affairs 01 Feb 2017 Centre defends in Hi ...

Centre defends in High Court its decision to ban Zakir Naik's IRF

PTI
Published Feb 1, 2017, 5:03 pm IST
Updated Feb 1, 2017, 5:26 pm IST
The MHA had imposed an immediate ban on the organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
The Islamic Research Foundation office headed by Zakir Naik at Dongri in Mumbai. (Photo: PTI/File)
 The Islamic Research Foundation office headed by Zakir Naik at Dongri in Mumbai. (Photo: PTI/File)

New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday defended in the Delhi High Court its decision to ban controversial Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik's Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) saying the order was made after "application of mind" as there was apprehension that youth could be "radicalised" to join terror groups.

The government told Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, who reserved the verdict on IRF's plea challenging the order to immediately ban the organisation, that it has enough material in its possession to take action against IRF.

 

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre, also produced before the court the files and materials available with the government on the basis of which the decision was made.

The ASG handed over these documents to the court and requested Justice Sachdeva to "have a look at the materials and notings on the basis of which such a decision was taken".

IRF, in its plea, has challenged the November 17, 2016, notification of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which had imposed an immediate ban on the organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

During the hearing today, senior advocate Dinesh Mathur, representing IRF, submitted that the MHA notification gives no reason and cites no material for taking such a step as was required by the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

IRF also said the immediate ban was imposed without giving it any show cause notice.

However, the Centre countered the submissions and said that the need for taking the urgent step was felt in view of the apprehension that Indian youths could be "radicalised" or "motivated" by the alleged statements and speeches made by IRF and its members, including its President Naik, to join terror groups like ISIS, which is a cause of global concern.

Opposing the maintainability of the petition, the ASG said the government did not want to wait for some "catastrophic" incident to happen before taking the decision.

Aggrieved by the Centre's stand, IRF's counsel said that whatever has been done by a person in his or her individual capacity does not mean that an organisation can be banned.

"IRF is not an accused in the case and the crime report reported against Naik is of 2012-2013," he said, adding, "Why action has been taken afer such a long time? Is this the way the government applies its mind?"

...
Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT