By Abu Zafar, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: Rejecting the government’s stand that the two ex-members of banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) are not eligible to appear as representative of SIMI unless they accept that they are current members of SIMI not ex-members, on Monday a special tribunal of Justice V.K. Shali of the Delhi High Court allowed them to appear before the tribunal and participate in the proceedings.
“It is premature to decide the locus standi of representatives of SIMI, Humam Ahmad Siddiqui and Misbahul Islam, now,” says Justice Shali.
Representing the government Amarjit Singh Chandhok, Additional Solicitor General of India, argued that they (Siddiqui and Islam) are shedding their skin as the SIMI still exists and is active.
But the court observes that “They can’t shed their skin as they were office bearers and members of the banned organization at 27 September, 2001, when the SIMI was banned by first time.” SIMI was banned in 27 September, 2001 for two years under the of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and now it is going its sixth ban.
According to the UAPA the government appoints a special tribunal to look at the ground, which has been given from the government for the ban, is sufficient or not. In August 2008, Justice Geeta Mittal, judge of special tribunal and sitting judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the ban saying “Material given by the home ministry is insufficient, so ban cannot be continued,” but within 24 hours Central Government approached the Supreme Court of India and the lifting of the ban was stayed.
Chandhok also states that these two persons have to be held to represent SIMI but the court said that “they can’t be prosecuted under section 10 and 13 of UAPA.”
Ashok Agarwal, lawyer for two former members of SIMI, says that they will appear before the court as full party. “We are not members or office bearers because the organization doesn’t exist and it was banned in 2001. We have even crossed the age limit of SIMI,” Agarwal argued on behalf of his clients. “According to the SIMI by-laws no one can be member of SIMI after crossing the 30 years of age,” he further said.
“Section 4 (3) of UAPA has included former members and former office bearers, interpreting the provision otherwise would leads to absurdity,” he pointed out.
Agarwal also has given reference of Supreme Court judgment in which the SC said that ‘Merely being a member of banned outfit is not a crime’. Under the section 3(11) of UAPA there is no power to the government to repeat the ban.
Apart from that under the article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India everyone has a right to make association and there is no provision for the repeated ban. Further matter has been upheld for the next hearing, which has been scheduled to Friday and the tribunal will record the evidences in Trivandrum in the first week of May.