By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: The lawyers who have fought against the ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in the court of law are of the view that the ban is purely political and has nothing to do with crime as in the last eight years the government has not been able to prove its charges against SIMI.
They say that before SIMI was banned in September 2001 there was no case against the organization. The government banned it saying it is a terrorist organization but has not yet proved its involvement in any terror activity.
Adv Homam Ahmed Siddiqi
Was SIMI banned for their involvement in some crime or was it purely a political decision?
“The ban was completely political because before the ban there was no case of terrorism against SIMI. It had been here for 25 years. But there was no big case against the organization. All the cases were filed against SIMI after it was banned. All the cases are fictional,” says Adv. Mobeen Akhtar.
Adv Homam Ahmed Siddiqi says: “There was no case against SIMI before 1998 when the BJP came to power in the centre. Soon after, fake cases were registered against SIMI and demands were made to ban it. In September 2001, in the shadow of 9/11 the BJP government banned SIMI. But till date, the government has not proved charges of terrorism against any SIMI member.”
While banning the SIMI what was the argument of the government?
“The government alleged that SIMI wanted to establish an Islamic state and that too through violence. The allegation is entirely baseless. True, they were propagating Islam, but the right to propagate religion has been given by the constitution. The organization was also doing social work. They were conducting relief and rehabilitation work in time of natural calamities. They served the affected people irrespective of their religion,” Adv Akhtar argues.
“There are numerous shortcomings in the government’s point. First, they say, for example, that this person A is a SIMI member. He has done unlawful activities and taken part in blasts. Our point is that activities of individuals and organizations should be differentiated. If you have banned an organization you should prove its involvement in the crime. Second, the government has failed to prove that the persons alleged to be SIMI members are truly SIMI members. SIMI had records of its members. We told the court and tribunals that SIMI had 20400 members. We had requested Justice S K Agarwal of the first tribunal to order the police to open our office and bring out records to the court. The records will tell who our member is and who is not but the tribunal did not heed to our request,” Adv Siddiqi says.
He further says: Of all groups banned under the Unlawful Activities Act, SIMI is the only organization which is overground with its headquarters in New Delhi and state headquarters in some states. It had offices at local levels also which have been sealed by the Police. Moreover we are fighting our case in the court. We are before the police.
Adv Mobeen Akhtar
While Adv Sididqi was taking the case of SIMI he was picked in 2008 in connection with a fictitious case. “In fact this was a move to derail the proceedings of the Geeta Mittal tribunal which was hearing the fourth ban on SIMI. I, however, was granted bail within one month,” says Adv Homam Ahmed Sididqi.
The tribunal of Delhi High Court lifted the fourth ban on SIMI on 05 August 2008 but the next day the central government approached the Supreme Court and secured a stay order on the judgment of Justice Geeta Mittal of the tribunal. The stay is still on.
Adv Mobeen Akhtar has some reservation regarding the role of judiciary in the SIMI case.
“The role of judiciary in the SIMI case has not been according to the judicial system. The tribunal had gone against us in the last three bans. We petitioned in the Supreme Court but none of our three petitions has been heard by the court so far. When the last ban went against the government and the tribunal lifted the ban on us, the same court took the verbal petition from the government which had approached it within 18 hours of the tribunal order, and ordered stay on the judgment of the tribunal without listening to us. A two-judge bench of the apex court passed the stay order while there is a three-judge bench judgment that says no stay will be granted on verbal petition without listening to the other party,” he says.