Delhi High Court Upholds Maintainability of PFI’s Challenge to UAPA Tribunal Ban

 

The Delhi High Court has held that a petition by the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging a five-year ban upheld by a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) tribunal is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions against tribunal orders passed under Section 4 of the UAPA. The bench accordingly issued notice to the Central Government to respond, directing a counter to be filed within six weeks and allowing two weeks for rejoinder, and scheduled the matter for hearing.

In September 2022, the Union Home Ministry had issued a gazette notification declaring PFI and its affiliate organizations as “unlawful associations” for a period of five years under Section 3(1) of the UAPA. Thereafter, a UAPA tribunal, presided over by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court, upheld the ban in March 2024. PFI, in turn, approached the High Court seeking judicial review of that tribunal decision. The Government, however, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that since the tribunal was headed by a sitting High Court judge, its orders could not be challenged before the same court under Article 226. Instead, the Centre contended that the only remedy for PFI lay before the Supreme Court under Article 136, since a sitting High Court judge is not subordinate to his own court and orders passed by him in tribunal capacity cannot be reviewed by his colleagues.

The High Court rejected the Centre’s objection, holding that despite the tribunal being headed by a sitting judge, the High Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226. The bench noted that a court’s jurisdiction to issue writs under Article 226 is not ousted merely because an order was passed by a tribunal constituted under the UAPA. The Court said that the issue of maintainability must be adjudicated on its merits rather than summarily excluded. By declaring the petition maintainable, the Court cleared the path for full consideration of PFI’s substantive challenge to the ban.

Thus, the High Court affirmed that the writ jurisdiction is available in such matters and directed the Central Government to file its response. The challenge will proceed on merits, with the question of whether the order of the tribunal confirming the ban passes constitutional muster, now firmly before the court.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community