ORDER
This order will answer the reference under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
1. The Central Government vide notification No.S.O.960 (E) dated 27.9.2001, in exercise of the powers conferred under [SECTION] of the Act, declared Students [ENTITY]ic Movement of India (hereinafter for short referred to as '[ENTITY]') to be an unlawful association. Under proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Act, the Central Government also declared the said association to be unlawful with immediate effect, as in its opinion the circumstances so warranted. The Central Government by another notification No.S.O.961 (E) dated 8.10.2001, under [SECTION] of the Act, constituted this Tribunal, and made the reference under [SECTION] of the Act for adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the said association unlawful. The notification was accompanied by a resume of facts and grounds on the basis of which the said notification was issued, as required by [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").
3. On receipt of reference, notices were issued, calling upon the [ENTITY] to show cause with 30 days from the date of service of notice, as to why it should not be declared unlawful. The notices were directed to be served by ordinary process as well as by publication in the national and local newspapers and by pasting on notice board of the offices of District Magistrates and Tehsildars. [ENTITY] entered appearance through its All India President, [ENTITY]. States of Maharashtra, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi also entered appearance and supported the notification declaring [ENTITY] to be unlawful. For arrayed as the petitioner and [ENTITY] as respondent No. 1 and other States were arrayed as respondents 2 to 11.
3. Parties were directed to file their written statements Along with the documents on which they proposed to rely. Learned counsel for Union of India made the statement that the Background Note and documents filed along with the notification be treated as their statement. [ENTITY]-respondent No. 1 filed the written statement/objections, through its President, to which a rejoinder was filed by the UOI.
[SECTION]. The case set-up by the Central Government in brief is that [ENTITY] came into existence on [SECTION].[SECTION].1977 in the Aligarh Muslim University as a front organisation of youth and students having faith in Jamait-e-[ENTITY]i-Hind (JEIH). It declared itself independent in the year 1993 with the following proclaimed objectives:-
1. Governing of human life on the basis of Quran;
2. Propagation of [ENTITY];
3. Jehaad (religious war) for the cause of [ENTITY];
[SECTION]. Destruction of Nationalism and establishment of [ENTITY]ic Rule or Caliphate.
[SECTION]. [ENTITY] aims to utilize students and youths in the propagation of [ENTITY] religion and mobilise support for Jehaad. It aims at achieving Shariat based [ENTITY]ic rule through [ENTITY]ic Inqualab. It does not believe in the nation state, therefore, it also does not believe in the constitution or the secular order. It regards I dol worship as a sin and its holy duty to end such worship. It is stated that [ENTITY] organisation has been indulging in anti-national, militant and objectionable activities and is known to have launched a country-wide campaign since November 1996 to mobilize support for the caliphate (Rule of [ENTITY]) for Muslim community. It advocates self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir and is in close touch with the militant outfits in jammu and Kashmir, including pro-Pak Hizb-ul-Muzahideen (HUM) and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. The leadership of [ENTITY] also extended full support to Punjab extremists and Jammu and Kashmir insurgents.
6. Further, it is stated that [ENTITY] is closely associated with Al-Ummah, All India Jehad Committee (AIJC) and Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (TMMK) in Tamil Nadu and is also involved in various militant activities relating to killing of Hindus, especially persons associated with RSS/Hindu organizations, since August, 1993. Its anti-national posture was exposed by its pro-Pak stand on the issue of [ENTITY]. During the [ENTITY] crisis, [ENTITY] leaders, contrary to the views of most other Muslim leaders and organizations who had supported the Indian Government's action including the air strikes, had adopted an anti-India posture. The contentions of [ENTITY] on the [ENTITY] issue were that: it were the Kashmiri "freedom fighters" who had been fighting the Indian Army in [ENTITY], and not the Pakistan Army or Pakistani nationals as claimed by the Government. The Indian Army was engaged in barbaric torture of Muslims in [ENTITY], including Muslim women, on the pretext of fighting the infiltrators.
7. It is pleaded that in the [ENTITY] Conferences at Kanpur, Aurangabad and Malappuram, the anti-national and militant posture of [ENTITY] was manifest in the speeches of its leaders and the conduct of different programmes. [ENTITY] leaders, in their addresses, eulogized and glorified Pan-[ENTITY]ic terrorists and fundamentalists like [ENTITY], Shikh Mohd.
Yasin (HAMAS leader) and [ENTITY]. They used derogatory language for Hindu Gods and Goddesses, and exhorted Muslims for Jehad and Martyrdom to counter atrocities on Muslims and to establish the supremacy of [ENTITY]. Describing the concept of secularism, democracy and nationalism as anti-[ENTITY], the speakers gave a call to obey only the law of Allah and not man-made laws. Cassettes containing provocative and fundamentalist speeches of Pan-[ENTITY]ic leaders like [ENTITY] (Pak JEI leader) and Sheikh [ENTITY] (HAMAS) were played at the conference. In an in-camera meeting of selected [ENTITY] leaders at Kanpur, it was decided to promote militant ideas among the Muslim students and youth, directed against Hinduism and establish clandestine links with militant outfits like the Lashkaer-e-Toiba.
8. It is further pleaded that [ENTITY] had published posters captioning the advent of a 'new Mahmood of Ghaznawi' in the context of the [ENTITY]. The circulation of these posters has the potential of hurting the sentiments of Hindus, polluting the minds of various religious groups and disturbing peace and communal harmony. As pert of their anti-India propaganda [ENTITY] has also published a calender containing distorted and misleading historical facts about the accession of Kashmir to India and giving an impression that Kashmiri Muslims had been suppressed and exploited for long. [ENTITY] has procured audio cassettes containing the speech of [ENTITY] (Harkat-ul-Mujahideen), who was released in exchange for the hostages of the Indian Airlines plance, in which [ENTITY] exhorted Muslims for "Jehad" till Kashmir is liberated. It is inter alia stated that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi more than 100 cases have been registered against members of [ENTITY] under various Sections of [ACT]/[ACT] The reasons for banning [ENTITY] with immediate effect are given as under:-
(a) [ENTITY] is in close touch with militant outfits and is supporting extremism/militancy in Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir and elsewhere;
(b) [ENTITY] supports claims for the secession of a part of the Indian territory from the Union, supports groups fighting for this purpose, and is thus questioning the territorial integrity of India;
(c) [ENTITY] is working for an International [ENTITY]ic Order;
(d) During [ENTITY] conferences, the anti-national and militant postures of the [ENTITY] were clearly manifest in the speeches of the leaders who glorified Pan [ENTITY]ic Fundamentalism, used derogatory language for deities of other religions and exhorted Muslims for Jehad;
(e) [ENTITY] has published objectionable posters and literature which are calculated to incite communal feelings and which question the territorial integrity of India;
(f) [ENTITY] is involved in engineering communal riots and disruptive activities in various parts of the country;
9. Respondent No. 1-[ENTITY], in their reply, have denied the allegations stating that these are mala fide, illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction. It is claimed that [ENTITY] organisation was founded on April [SECTION], 1977 in Aligarh by educated and enlightened citizens of India. It is a Deeni (religious) secular organization and its activities are apolitical and non-communal besides being spiritual and religious. It believes in unity of God and unity of humankind. Till its ban, [ENTITY] was connected only with lawful activities. The primary objective/aim of [ENTITY] is to guide the mankind and to provide a practical example of putting God's guidance into practice and reconstruction of human life according to the guidance given by God. It believes in unity of God and unity of Human kind. Its main function is upliftment of mankind and service of human beings by carrying out social service and by helping those affected during natural or man made calamities, without distinguishing people on the basis of religion, caste, creed or sex. It has its own written constitution and till its ban it was carrying on only lawful activities which were in consonance with its aims and objectives.
10. It is pleaded that [ENTITY] is an absolutely lawful and patriotic association working for the betterment of the lives of the people, development of the society, unity, peace and prosperity and universal brotherhood. The organization structure of [ENTITY] is democratic and its working advisory in nature. It has a Central Representative Council (CRC). This body, in turn, elects the President and the Central Advisory Committee. The Secretary General of the Organization is appointed by the President in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee. There are [SECTION]00 "[ENTITY]" (basic members) and about 20,000 [ENTITY]s (ordinary members). Only persons of proven integrity, good character and those imbibed with a spirit of sacrifice and service to humankind are enrolled as [ENTITY]s. The maximum age limit of an [ENTITY] is 30 years and after attaining the age of 30 years a person ceases to be a member of the organization both in the capacity of [ENTITY] and that of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] is therefore purely a student youth organisation and is in no manner connected with or related to any of the allegations levelled against it. It is claimed that the whole of the organisation cannot be blamed or banned just because a few members of the organisation were allegedly working against the interest, aims and objectives of the organisation. Actions of such members cannot be attributed to be the actions of the organisation. The organisation works through its resolutions and there is no resolution that warrants the ban on the organisation.
11. It is further pleaded that [ENTITY] is an organization of the minority community and should not be blacked out unjustly as it will lead to panic based on minority discrimination. It is submitted that banning an organisation of a minority community having only soci-religious aims is a clear violation of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The activities of [ENTITY] have always been open and lawful. There is no iota of secrecy or unlawfulness in the activities of [ENTITY]. There has been no occasion in the [SECTION] years of [ENTITY]'s existence where any violence or even a strife or disturbance has occured in any part of the country as a result of any activity of [ENTITY]. It has undertaken several programs such as scholarships & career guidance to the needy students. The grounds spelt out in the Notification for banning the organization fall short of mandatory conditions and that the ban is authoritarian and bad in law. It is pleaded that the timing of the ban is actuated by the political motives and is not based on any legal foundation. It was intended to create terror in the minds of minority Muslim community and an "anti national" image out of ordinary Muslims in the country.
12. It is further pleaded that [ENTITY] had never challenged the territorial integrity of the country nor has it stated anything which will incite communal violence in the country. The most outstanding contribution of [ENTITY] has been in the field of social service and in the field of relief work during natural and man made calamities. It under-took extensive social work and provided relief to the victims of the earth quake in Gujarat without discrimination between people of various religions. It is denied that [ENTITY] is in close touch with militant outfits and is supporting extremism in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere. It is claimed that [ENTITY] believes in an International [ENTITY]ic Order just as the socialists have an International Socialists Order as their aim. It was pleaded that any citizen, if he so desires, can be a part of an international Hindu Order or an International Christian Order. [ENTITY] having an international presence, every Muslim has a right to aspire to be a part of International [ENTITY]ic Order. It is pleaded that the present Central Government is inimical to the minorities and the ban on [ENTITY] is wholly unconstitutional. It has been denied that during [ENTITY] conferences, the anti-national and militant postures of [ENTITY] were manifested in the speeches of its leaders who glorified pan [ENTITY]ic Fundamentalism, used derogatory language for deities of other religions and exhorted Muslims for Jehad. It is denied that [ENTITY] has published objectionable posters and literature which are calculated to incite communal feelings and which question the territorial integrity of India. It is pleaded that no poster has been displayed or literature published by [ENTITY] to incite communal feeling and which question the territorial integrity of India.
13. Taking into consideration the issues involved and the statutory limitation of six months under the Act for completion of the enquiry, parties were directed to lead their evidence by way of affidavits. Shri [ENTITY], Joint Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, filed an affidavit, in support of the notification. On the other hand, [ENTITY], all India president of [ENTITY] filed his affidavit and [ENTITY], President of Rajasthan Zone, and [ENTITY] President of U.P. Zone also filed their affidavits. During the course of enquiry affidavits of [ENTITY], Secretary Tamil Nadu Unit; [ENTITY], Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Unit; [ENTITY]., President, Kerala Zone; [ENTITY], Secretary, West Bengal Unit; [ENTITY], President, Hyderabad Unit on behalf of respondent [ENTITY] were also filed. They also filed additional affidavits and documents when they appeared as witnesses. Affidavits along with documents were also filed by the concerned officers of respondent Nos. 2 to 11, in support of the notification. Thereafer parties also examined their witnesses. As per the request of parties hearings of the Tribunal were held in Delhi as well as in the States.
1[SECTION]. The Central Government in support of its case examined PW-[SECTION]1, [ENTITY], Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, who proved his affidavits Ex.PW-[SECTION]1/1 and Ex.PW-[SECTION]1/[SECTION]; and the notification Ex.PW-[SECTION]1/2; the background note prepared by Mr. [ENTITY], Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Ex.PW-[SECTION]1/3. He also proved Summary chart of cases registered against members of [ENTITY] during 1997-2001 in different States and the supporting documents marked PW.[SECTION]1/3-A (collectively), copies of posters, calenders and pamphlets published by [ENTITY] marked PW-[SECTION]1/3-B and other notifications marked PW-[SECTION]1/3C. He deposed that the Government received the material regarding unlawful activities of [ENTITY] from the States and other agencies; that [ENTITY] has close links with extremist and militant organisations in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and supports the claim for secession of Indian territory; that during "[ENTITY]" conferences [ENTITY] had glorified [ENTITY]ic fundamentalism, used derogatory language against Hindu deities and exhorted Muslims for "Jehad"; that [ENTITY] had published objectionable literature and pamphlets, instigating communal disharmony in the country and engineering communal disturbances and disruptive activities in various parts of the country. On the basis of this material, the Govt. took a decision to ban [ENTITY], declaring it to be an unlawful organisation under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
1[SECTION]. Evidence was also led on behalf of the ten respondent-States. [ENTITY] Officers and the Investigating Officers, who investigated the cases registered against the members of [ENTITY] have been examined. The [ENTITY] Officers proved the affidavits of the Investigating Officers working under them and the documents filed along with those affidavits. In some cases, Investigating Officers also appeared as witnesses and proved their affidavits. They proved FIRs, charge-sheets, investigation reports, panchnama showing recovery of arms, explosives and other case property of the cases registered against [ENTITY] members. Some confessional statements made by the accused persons have also been proved.
16. Respondent-[ENTITY] examined nine witnesses. RW-1, [ENTITY], All India President, [ENTITY] supported his case and proved constitution of [ENTITY] Ex.RW-1/1. RW-2, [ENTITY], Secretary, Tamil Nadu Unit; RW-3, [ENTITY], President of U.P. Zone; RW-[SECTION], [ENTITY] President of Rajasthan Zone; RW-[SECTION], [ENTITY], Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Unit; RW-6, [ENTITY]., President, Kerala Zone; RW-7, [ENTITY], Secretary, West Bengal Unit; RW-8, [ENTITY], President, Hyderabad Unit; and RW-9, [ENTITY], Zonal President of [ENTITY] Unit in Maharashtra appeared as witnesses in support of the case of [ENTITY]. These witnesses proved their respective affidavits and have stated that the activities of [ENTITY] are lawful, social and educational.
17. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], learned Additional Solicitor General, Sh. [ENTITY] learned counsel for [ENTITY] and have been taken through the record.
18. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel for respondent No.-[ENTITY] argued that for the purpose of adjudicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring [ENTITY] as unlawful, the material collected by the Central Government after issuance of the Notification dated 27th September, 2001, declaring [ENTITY] to be an unlawful association, cannot be considered, as the same was not available before the Appropriate Authority when it took the decision to ban [ENTITY]. He further argued that the material relied upon by the Government while declaring [ENTITY] as an unlawful association is stale and insufficient and on the basis of such material, no opinion for declaring an association unlawful could be formed. I am unable to agree. These principles are applicable while examining the validity of a preventive detention order; where the Court is required to see whether the subjective decision was reached by the detaining authority on the material available before it. The adequacy of material on which the satisfaction purports to rest cannot be examined by the Court. However, under [SECTION] of the Act, the Tribunal is required to adjudicate whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the Association unlawful. Thus, the material which existed prior to the notification but comes in possession of the government after the issuance of the Notification under [SECTION] of the Act, can be considered by the Tribunal to determine the sufficiency of the cause.
19. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1-[ENTITY] next argued that the confessional statements made by the accused persons arrested in different cases, even prior to 27th September, 2001, cannot be relied upon either to show that the accused persons were members of [ENTITY] or to prove that the activities of [ENTITY] were or are unlawful or that it encourages or aids the persons to undertake unlawful activities. He argued that the facts revealed through these confessional statements, were well within the knowledge of the different investigating agencies, therefore, the reception of the said statements would be barred under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Reliance is placed on Pulukuri Kottya and Ors. v. Emperor 19[SECTION]7 Privy Council, 67. Learned counsel for UOI argued to the contrary. The confessional statements referred to and relied upon by the Government, were recorded during investigation of the criminal cases in which they were arrested. [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence. The expression "a person accused of an offence" describes the person against whom evidence is sought to be proved in a criminal case. The adjective clause "accused of an offence", is therefore, descriptive of the person against whom a confession is sought to be proved. The confessional statements, can be used in Civil Proceedings and other collateral proceedings under the [ACT]. The inquiry before this Tribunal is clearly not a trial against the accused persons, who made the confessional statements. Therefore, in my considered view confessional statements made by the accused persons during investigation of different cases to the police or before the Court, would not be hit by [SECTION] of the [ACT] and are admissible in evidence, to show whether the accused persons were or are the members of the association, as well as to show whether the activities of the association are unlawful or not. This view finds support from [PRECEDENT]., and Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in [PRECEDENT], , wherein it was held:
refers to a confession which is not permitted to be proved as against a person accused of any offence, it refers to a confession made by an accused person which is proposed to be proved against him to establish an offence. The scope of [SECTION] is therefore restricted only to a confession made by a person who is an accused that is being used in a proceeding to establish an offence against him"
(Emphasis supplied) In view of the above, the confessional statements recorded during the course of investigation of various criminal cases by the police would be admissible to determine the activities of the Association as well as its members.
20. Learned counsel for [ENTITY] next argued that Government could not claim privilege in public interest and withhold inputs received from its agencies, while declaring [ENTITY] as an unlawful association and that no privilege could be claimed under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] in respect of such documents. Reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision in [PRECEDENT], and State of U.P. v. Raj Narain 197[SECTION] ([SECTION]) SCC [SECTION]28. Law with regard to claim to privilege is well settled. Privilege can always be claimed regarding the internal files which are meant for the use of the department and not meant for the outside exposure or publication. PW-[SECTION]1, Mr. [ENTITY], Joint Secretary, in his affidavit has clearly stated that the disclosure of the inputs received from various Government agencies would be against public interest. The objection was taken at the earliest opportunity. Learned counsel for the Government further submitted that they have no objection if the relevant files are perused by the Tribunal. In view of this settled proposition of law, this contention is also held to be without any merit.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent [ENTITY] next argued that the material relied upon by the government in the form of calenders, magazines, posters, etc. only reflects historical facts or reproduction of religious scriptures. It is argued that this material could not form the basis to show any unlawful activity of an individual or an Association,within the meaning of [SECTION] of the Act. He further argued that the said material falls within the scope of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] and that banning or forfeiture of such material would violate [SECTION] thereof. Every religion is to be treated equally and no preference is to be given to any particular religion. Liberty of throught, expression, belief, faith and worship are assured under the [ACT], therefore, [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT] are not attracted. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 199[SECTION] SC 177[SECTION]); [PRECEDENT]; Joseph Bain D'Souza v. State of Maharashtra (199[SECTION] Crl.L.J. 1316); [PRECEDENT]; and The [PRECEDENT] .
22. There can be no dispute about this proposition when someone is sought to be prosecuted under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT]. Here the issue is whether [ENTITY] is an 'unlawful association' as defined under [SECTION] of the Act, which reads:
2(g) "Unlawful Association" means any association:
(i) which has for its objects any unlawful activity, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of which the members undertake such activity; or
(ii) which has for its object any activity which is punishable under [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the [ACT], or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity.
23. A bare reading of the above would show that an 'unlawful association' means an Association which has, for its object, any unlawful activity or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity or of which the members undertake any such activity or which has for its object any activity, which is punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION], [ACT]. The section is very wide. If an Association has for its object any unlawful activity, it can be declared as an unlawful association. The "unlawful activity" in relation to an individual or association has been defined under [SECTION] of the Act to mean any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise), which is intended, or supports any claim to bring about, on any ground whatsover, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the session of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or session; which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to distrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. Therefore, while considering the question whether an Association is carrying out any unlawful activity or not, we have to go by the definition as given in [SECTION] of the Act. The "cession of any part of the territory of India" defined under [SECTION] of the Act includes admission of the claim of any foreign country to any such part. "Secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union" defined under Sub-section (d) includes the assertion of any claim to determine whether such part will remain a part of the territory of India or not. None of the cases cited by learned counsel for the respondent [ENTITY] under [SECTION] and [SECTION] are applicable to the facts of this case. The factual situation in each of those cases is different. Mere inciting of feeling of one group, without any reference to another religion was held not to attract the provisions of [SECTION] Again, mere casual raising of some slogans couple of times by the accused persons, without intention to incite people to create disorder was held neither to constitute any threat to Government of India nor it gave rise to a feeling of hatred amongst different communities or regions. Therefore, in ultimate analysis, it would be a question of fact to be examined whether the material available before the Government and placed before the Tribunal is sufficient to hold the association as an unlawful association or to hold that the activities alleged are unlawful activities or not, as defined in [SECTION] of the Act.
2[SECTION]. Learned counsel for the respondent next argued that no reliance can be placed on the affidavit or the document filed by PW. [SECTION]1, [ENTITY], as the facts stated in his affidavit are not based on his personal knowledge are are based on information gathered from the record. Thus, the government has failed to prove its case. The enquiry under this Act is not a regular trial. Strict rules of evidence and standard of proof are not applicable. The material placed before the Tribunal need not be a legal evidence in the strict sense. The Tribunal can even look into undisclosed material for the purpose of assessing the credibility of information and satisfying itself whether it can be safely acted upon. Law in this regard is authoritatively laid down by the apex Court decision in Jamaat-e-[ENTITY]i Hind v. Union of India. wherein it was held:-
"22. It is obvious that the unlawful activities of an association may quite often be clandestine in nature and, therefore, the source of evidence of the unlawful activities may require continued confidentiality in public interest. In such a situation, disclosure of the source of such information, and, may be, also full particulars thereof, is likely to be against the public interest. The scheme of the Act and the procedure for inquiry indicated by the Rules framed there under provide for maintenance of confidentiality, whenever required in public interest. However, the non-disclosure of sensitive information and evidence to the association and its office/bearers, whenever justified in public interest, does not necessarily imply its non-disclosure to he Tribunal as well. In such cases where the Tribunal is satisfied that non-disclosure of such information to the association or its office-bearers is in public interest, it may permit its non-disclosure to the association or its office bearers, but in order to perform its task of adjudication as required by the Act, the Tribunal can look into the same for the purpose of assessing the credibility of the information and satisfying itself that it an safely act on the same. In such a situation, the Tribunal can devise a suitable procedure whereby it can itself examine and test the credibility of such material before its decides to accept the same for determining the existence of sufficient cause for declaring the association to be unlawful. The materials need not be confined only to legal evidence in the strict sense. Such a procedure would ensure hat the decision of the Tribunal is an adjudication made on he points in controversy after assessing the credibility of the material it has chosen to accept, without abdicating its function by merely acting on the ipse dixit of the Central Government. Such a course would satisfy he minimum requirement of natural justice tailored to suit the circumstances of each case, while protecting the right of the association and its members, without jeopardising the public interest. This would also ensure that the process of adjudication is not denuded of its content and the decision ultimately rendered by the Tribunal is reached by it on all points in controversy after adjudication and not by mere acceptance of the opinion already formed by the Central Government."
(emphasis supplied) It was further held:-
" What is the fair procedure in a given case, would depend on the materials constituting the factual foundation of the notification and the manner in which the Tribunal can assess its true worth. This has to be determined by the Tribunal keeping in view he nature of its scrutiny, the minimum requirement of natural justice, he act that the materials in such matters are not confined to legal evidence in the strict sense, and that the scrutiny is not a criminal trial. The Tribunal should form its opinion on all the points in controversy after assessing for itself the credibility of the material relating to it, even though it may not be disclosed to the association, if the public interest so requires."
(emphasis supplied)
[SECTION]. Now the stage is reached to consider the material on record. The Central Government in support of its case proved the Background Note on the unlawful activities of [ENTITY]. Along with this notes, hey have filed he list of more than hundred criminal cases registered against the members of [ENTITY] under various Sections of [ACT]/[ACT] (annexure-I). They have also filed posters, pamphlets, articles, speeches, denigrating the Hindu religion and instigating Muslims to fight against Hindus. The calendar published by [ENTITY] contain distorted and misleading historical facts about association of Kashmir to India giving an impression that Kashmiri Muslims had been suppressed and exploited for long. Some of the posters, pamphlets and a calendar have also been proved along with the note as annexure-II. The slogans on some of the posters read:-
1. [ENTITY].
2. [ENTITY].
3. [ENTITY], Unhe [ENTITY];
[SECTION]. [ENTITY].
[SECTION]. [ENTITY] seer Jhukakar Puja Karte Hai Use Bhi Phenk Denge.
6. [ENTITY] Or [ENTITY].
7. Tera Badla Hai Karz Humpur.
8. [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY].
9. Srinagar Se Dili Tak Dusra Pakistan Banega.
10. [ENTITY], Zang-e-Azadi Zari Rakhna.
11. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] Ala.
12. [PRECEDENT].
13. [ENTITY].
1[SECTION]. [ENTITY].
1[SECTION]. [ENTITY].
16. [ENTITY].
17. [ENTITY] to [ENTITY] will go on.
18. Waiting, How Long.
19. Waiting for another Gaznavi.
The above slogans clearly prove the involvement of [ENTITY] in questioning the unity and integrity of India, instigating communal strife, hurting sentiments of other religions and various social groups thereby disturbing peace and communal harmony. The pamphlet/publication caling Kashmir the "Kosovo of India" showing that Kashmir is not to be the part of India, artile calling for "[ENTITY]isaion of India" and the speeches by activists further show that they had no faith in the [ACT].
[SECTION]. The respondents, in support of their case, have examined their Al India President, Mr. [ENTITY], as RW.1 and other State office-bearers as RW.2 to RW.9. While denying the allegations against [ENTITY] Along with the affidavit, he has claimed that [ENTITY] was never involved in questioning the unity and integrity of India, instigating communal strife, polluting the mind of people, disturbing peace and spreading communal disharmony; and that [ENTITY] association and its members have faith in the [ACT].
27. However, this does not find support from their own evidence. The respondent No. 1-[ENTITY] examined RW-2, [ENTITY], Secretary of their Tamil Nadu Unit, a lecturer in Mohd. Sadar College of Arts and Science at Chennai. He stated that they got the calendars from the Head office of [ENTITY] in Delhi and wee circulated amongst its various units containing preaching of [ENTITY]. It also contains narration of the sufferings of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He admitted that [ENTITY] believes that Muslims of Jammu and kashmir have a right of plebiscite for self determination. In cross-examination, he stated that 'political - religious State, comprising the Muslim community and the lands and the people in its domain are called Caliphate all over the world. I have not heard of the expression International [ENTITY]ic Order." He further admitted that on [SECTION]th June, 199, two. persons, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were arrested while distributing copies of [ENTITY] Sethi Madal, containing inflammatory and objectionable writings and FIR No. 722/9 was registered against them. However, he denied that they were the members of [ENTITY] He further admitted that on [SECTION]th December, 2000, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were arrested by police of Tamil Nadu while pasting objectionable posters at Coimbatore. He admitted that case FIR No. 722/99, under [SECTION] and [SECTION] was registered at P.S. Kattur on [SECTION].6.1999 against seven persons including [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Admittedly they were he members of [ENTITY]. he FIR reads: "We found that they were in possession of copies of Magazines "[ENTITY]" of Students [ENTITY]ic Movement - June 1999 issues containing 8 pages. Each copy was enclosed with May 1999 [ENTITY] issue a special issue relating to KOSOVO. An article with captions Kashmir: KOSOVO OF INDIA was found in the first and fifth pages of June month issue. The wording of the article was framed in such a way that it would create il feelings among the Muslims against India. Hence he accused were arrested." The said case is admittedly pending trial.
28. Admittedly, on 10th January, 2001, one sticker bearing monogram of [ENTITY] was found pasted near the guard post of SRK Hotel of Jamia Milia [ENTITY]ia University, Okhla, New Delhi in which three mosques, i.e. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] & [ENTITY] with symbols of cross, swastic and star respectively were shown in tears, with Hindi translation of [ENTITY] No. 2:1[SECTION], which says that person who prevents people from offering Namaz and damages the mosques is the most cruel man. The intent was to instigate he sentiments of Muslims to strive for the liberation of these Mosques. A case under Sections [SECTION], [ACT] was registered at P.S. New Friends Colony. Investigation revealed the identity of accused [ENTITY] as the All India President of [ENTITY]. He was arrested and the case is pending trial.
29. On 7th October, 2000, another case FIR No. [SECTION]89/2000, under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered on the basis of calender published by [ENTITY] which was examined by the Government of NCT. The calendar contains references that are likely to create enmity and communal disharmony as well as prejudicial to the national integration, legal proceedings against the authors and the publisher of the calendar were initiated. Investigations were taken up. The calendars presents distorted facts about association of Kashmir to India and gave an impression that Muslims have been persuaded for long in Kashmir. Thus they promoted disaffection against the Government established by law in India. It is stated that "the self styled champions of human rights he British sold Kashmir Kashmiris to [ENTITY] for a mere 7[SECTION] lakh rupees. [ENTITY] learned: "dekhan o kisi jua khiyaban forkhtand. [ENTITY] frukhland che arzan frokhtand". The tillers, the crops, the lakes and orchards they sold. A whole nation they sold and for a pittance. It shows that Kashmiri Muslims were subjected to extreme repression at the hands of [ENTITY] and his descendants for one hundred and one years. A number of mosques were razed to the ground. Inams restrained from delivering sermons. In 1931 the Khattev of Jammu Idgah was nabbed out while delivering the Khatba. It is claimed that desecration of the Holly Quran was a common occurrence. For beggar (forced labour) any number of Muslims were lifted from their Homes and driven away like cattle. It was not always that al of them returned to their kith and kin. It claimed that Muslim women bit a cow and under [ENTITY]'s order her head was shaved, her tongue chopped off and she was paraded in the streets The skins of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] peeled off and stuffing with rubbish and they were left hanging on a tree. They claim that Kashmir is today subjugated oppressed and poverty stricken.
30. January, 2000 issue (i) Front page of the magazine, and at page 29, an article, "Bandh Lo Sar Par Kafan Phir" written by [ENTITY] contain objectionable material which attract [SECTION] of the [ACT] as it promotes or attempts to promote enmity, hatred or il-will between different religious groups n grounds of religion, which is prejudicial to maintain communal harmony.
31. State of Delhi in support of is case examined PW-1, [ENTITY], Sub-Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, who is his evidence proved his affidavit Ex. PW-1/1. Copy of FIR No. 30[SECTION]/2001 registered at P.S. Kamla Market under [SECTION] etc. [ACT] and under [SECTION] of the [ACT]; and copies of the disclosure statements of the accused persons as well as connected documents are marked PW-1/1A to PW/1E respectively, showing recovery of 1.9 Kg. of RDX, four detonators, two remote control detonating devices and a wireless set, etc. effected rom [ENTITY].
32. PW-2, [ENTITY], Inspector, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, who is his evidence proved his affidavit EX.PW-2/1; that he conducted raid on the right between 27-8/9/2001 and arrested [ENTITY], National President of [ENTITY]; [ENTITY], Office Manager-cum-Circulation Manager, [ENTITY]; [ENTITY], Assistant Manager [ENTITY]; and [ENTITY], Office Secretary, in the case FIR No. [SECTION]32/2001, P.S. New Friends Colony and proved the incriminating material seized vide different seizure memos, marked PW.2/1A1 to PW.2/1A10. Transcripts of floppies, CPU and audio-video cassettes, and disclosure statements of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were recorded and copies of magazines seized and scrutinised, marked PW.2/1C.
33. PW-3, [ENTITY], Inspector, District Investigation Unit, South Distt, New Delhi, who is his evidence proved his affidavit Ex.PW-3/1; he investigated the case FIR No. [SECTION]89/2000 dated 7.10.2000, P.S. New Friends Colony, with respect to the calendar for the year, 2000, published by [ENTITY] received from Ministry of Home Affairs through the Home Department of the Government of Delhi, containing distorted faces regarding accession of Kashmir to India, disharmony between various sections of the Indian Community. FIR No. [SECTION]3[SECTION]/2000 was also registered on the basis of monthly magazine [ENTITY]ic Movement and other documents, which are collectively marked PW-3/1A.
3[SECTION]. PW-10, [ENTITY] Sub-Inspector, P.S. New Friends Colony, Delhi, who in his evidence proved his affidavit Ex. PW-10/1. He registered FIR No. 6[SECTION]3/2001 on [SECTION].11.2001, on the basis of 13 magazines seized from the possession of [ENTITY] at Batla House Chowk, Jamia Nagar. Copy of the seizure memo of the magazine as well as disclosure statements of the accused is marked PW-10/C and PW-10/D respectively.
3[SECTION]. PW-2[SECTION], [ENTITY] S.I. Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, who in his evidence proved his affidavit Ex.PW-2[SECTION]/1; He on 19.[SECTION].2001, registered FIR No. [SECTION]9/2001 under [SECTION] [ACT], PS New Friends Colony, New Delhi. On 10th January, 2001, some stickers were found pasted on the walls of SRK Hostel, Jamia Millia University, Okhla, Delhi. On those stickers three marks, namely, [ENTITY] (Spain), [ENTITY] (U.P.) and [ENTITY] (Philistine) were printed. On [ENTITY] cross mark, on [ENTITY] mark and on [ENTITY] star mark were also printed. he also proved on record copies of stickers. Copy FIR is marked PW-2[SECTION]/A; and copy of confessional statement is marked PW-2[SECTION]/D.
36. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, as per the material on record, 12 criminal cases were registered from 28th March, 1999 to 27th September, 2001 against the persons, some of whom are admittedly activists of [ENTITY] for various heinous offences including the following:-
(ii) On 9th August, 2000 at 11:30 pm. in Mohala Qureshi, there was a bomb explosion. Three persons were seriously injured in the said explosion and they later on died. Inquiries revealed that the persons who had died were students of Aligarh Muslim University. A case FIR No. 988 dated 9th August, 2000, under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT], P.S. Sadar Bazar Agra. Investigations revealed that they had come to Agra for the purpose of some practical training. During investigations on 3rd September, 2000, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] of Aligarh Muslim University were arrested large quantity of RDX, pamphlets and magazines were recovered. One [ENTITY] of Jammu and Kashmir was also arrested, and on his disclosure Ex. PW-[SECTION]/1E several other incidents in U.P. were solved. The accused confessed that he had been participating in weekly meeting of [ENTITY] known as "Izaatmaas". Confessional statements of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], Ex. PW-[SECTION]/1C and Ex.PW/[SECTION]/1D also show that they are members of [ENTITY] indulging in unlawful activities.
(ii) On 16th March, 2001, in a firming incident ADM (Finance) Shri [ENTITY] was killed on he spot and his orderly [ENTITY] and S.P. City, Pankaj Pathak were badly injured. Case vide FIR No. 72/2001 under [SECTION] [ACT] at P.S. Mool Ganj, Kanpur was registered. Four persons, namely, [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were arrested. [ENTITY] in his confessional statement admitted that he is an active member of [ENTITY] and had been pursuing the guide-lines laid down by [ENTITY] and has been indulging in terrorists activities with a view to achieve its objectives and that he through [ENTITY] leaders came in touch with militant outfits Hizbul Muzahideen. [ENTITY] also made similar confessional statement marked PW-6/E. He also stated that he is an active member of [ENTITY] and he came in touch with militant outfit organization Hizbul Muzahideen. These facts stand proved by the evidence of PW-6, [ENTITY], SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar, and his affidavit is Ex.PW-6/1.
(iii) On 3rd August 2001, during the course of investigation, one [ENTITY] was arrested. From his house search one factory made .30 bore pistol, 3 magazines, 2[SECTION] cartridges, 1.38 bore pistol one magazine, 6 cartridges were recovered without license.
A case vide FIR No. 72/2001 was registered. On his disclosure statement, he led to the recovery of 200 grams of RDX, 2 kg of potassium chloride, timer and other material used in making the country-made explosive was recovered, 9 hand-grenades were also recovered and a separate case vide FIR No. 73/2001 was registered. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW-12/10, he confessed that he met [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] office-bearers of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] had taken him to Kashmir where he was given training in handling arms and ammunitions. He further confessed that he was persuaded for al that on the ground that atrocities are being committed by Indian Army on the Muslims in Kashmir. These facts stand proved by the evidence of PW-12, [ENTITY], Inspector, P.S. Raipurwah, Kanpur and his affidavit is Ex.PW-12/1.
iv) On 1[SECTION]th August, 2000, there was a bumb blast in Sabarmati Express at Railway Station, Rosa Gaon, 10 persons were killed and [SECTION][SECTION] were injured. Consequently, a case vide FIR No. 1[SECTION]8/00 under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT] and Sections [SECTION] GRP Barabanki was registered. During investigations, three persons were arrested. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in their confessional statement submits that they are the active members of [ENTITY] and they had been participating in the meetings of [ENTITY] and they had kept the bag containing bag in Sabarmati Express at the instance of [ENTITY]. They confessed heir involvement in their disclosure statements which are PW 18/D collectively. These facts are proved by the evidence of PW.18, S.O., P.S. Railway Barabanki and also by his affidavit PW 18/1.
v) On 3.8.2001, 200 gms. RDX, 2 kg.
Potassium Chloride, Power circuits, Remote Circuits, Detonators, Rocket Cells, Bumb making Chemicals were recovered from the possession of [ENTITY], FIR Nos. 83/2001 under [SECTION] [ACT] was registered. Similar articles/materials were recovered from [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and FIR No. 8[SECTION]/2001 under [SECTION] & [SECTION] of [ACT] and FIR No. 70/2001 and FIR No. 71/2001 under [SECTION] [ACT] & [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] were registered. During investigations, they confessed that they are the active members of [ENTITY] and they have been participating in the terrorists activities and in touch with Kashmere militants. This was proved by PW-2 [ENTITY], SHO, P.S. Bajaria, Kanpur and by his affidavit Exhibit PW 20/1. RW.3 [ENTITY] in his evidence, has admitted some of the accused persons mentioned are the members of [ENTITY]. President, Utter Pradesh Zone of [ENTITY]. Other accused persons are the members of [ENTITY] stands proved by the disclosure statement of the accused persons made during investigations as referred to above.
37. RW-[SECTION], Dr. [ENTITY], President, [ENTITY] Unit, Rajasthan in his affidavit admitted pendency of six cases from 1998 to 2001 in different districts. FIR No. 136/98 under [SECTION] [ACT] P.S. Kotwali, Bikaner where around 300 people of Muslim community wee present, case was registered against [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], who are stated to be members of the [ENTITY]. Perusal of FIR No. 136/98 reveals that the case was registered on the basis of speeches delivered in front of [ENTITY] wherein Hindu Deities, Gods & Goddesses were ridiculed and abused. Prima facie it reveals that they have been abusing Hindu Gods and Goddesses with an intent to cause disaffection between different communities.
38. During the Naved-e-saher on 10th, 11th and 12th September, 2000 at Indore, members of [ENTITY] exhibited posters instigating the [ENTITY] youths saying "Pas bode na bano aur sulah ki darkhwast naa karo, tum hi galib rahoge". They also published poster containing "Vah din bhi babri masjid dikhayenge ek din, sujid se tujhe apane sajayenge ek din, Inshaallah"
showing three weeping mosques and also written "Ye dor apane ibrahim ki talash mein hai". Cases under [SECTION] were registered against them. RW-[SECTION], [ENTITY], Secretary, Madhya Pradesh State supporting the case of [ENTITY] in his affidavit admitted the pendency of [SECTION]0 cases in different districts of State of Madhya Pradesh.
39. The evidence led by the other States and the respondent-[ENTITY] through RW-6 to RW-9 is practically on similar lines and further discussion on their evidence is not required. The above material clearly shows that activities of [ENTITY] are unlawful.
[SECTION]0. From the foregoing discussion it is clear that members, office-bearers and activists of [ENTITY] Association have been indulging in unlawful activities. There is sufficient material, justification and grounds for the Central Government for taking action under [SECTION] of the Act or declaring [ENTITY] as an unlawful association. It may also be noticed that apart from the evidence lead by the Central and the State Government, which was made available to respondent-[ENTITY], the Central Government also produced original files. Perusal of the files showed that the Central Government had received intelligence reports from other agencies, and together with material which was available with the Government, it formed its opinion to declare [ENTITY] as an unlawful association and imposing the ban with immediate effect.
[SECTION]1. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that there is sufficient cause for confirming the notification issued under [SECTION] of the Act, declaring [ENTITY] to be an unlawful association and the same is hereby confirmed. The reference is answered accordingly.