Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea By Social Democratic Party Of India Against Sealing Of Its Mangalore Offices Under UAPA

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) seeking to unseal its properties in Mangalore which came to be sealed by the State government following the ban imposed by the Central Government on the organisation Popular Front of India (PFI).

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the notifications to seal the premises were issued under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. "Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is statutory and necessarily to be availed of, in the peculiar facts of this case, as recording of evidence for the acts of the State is imperative.”

The petitioner submitted that it is a political party and has its representation all over India, more particularly, in the Dakshina Kannada District. It was claimed that the political party is in the forefront of empowerment of the deprived sections of the society by divisive forces through its political movement.

In September 2022, the Central Government declared PFI and its associates or affiliates or Fronts as unlawful associations. It also empowered State Governments and Union territories to exercise powers under Sections 7 (Power to prohibit the use of funds of an unlawful association) and 8 (Power to notify places used for the purpose of an unlawful association) of the Act. Based on the aforesaid notification, several raids took place in the city of Mangalore. While so doing, certain campuses and places which were being allegedly used by several organisations were sealed and a few such offices of the petitioner/SDPI were also sealed in Mangalore.

The party contended that the PFI ban is restricted only to certain entities which are depicted in the notification itself. "SDPI was not one of those entities which were declared to be associates of PFI," it was argued.

The State government opposed the plea saying that the activities of the petitioner are directly linked to PFI and therefore, steps had to be taken to seal the premises. Moreover, there is an alternative remedy depicted in the notification itself which is in tune with UAPA. "Any act of the State Government can be challenged before the District Judge as serious disputed questions of fact arise in the case at hand. Thus it was said the writ petition should not be entertained and be relegated to the District Judge in terms of the Act," it was argued.

Findings:

The bench noted that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 42 of the Act, the Central Government has directed the State Governments to pass appropriate orders under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Section 8(3) and (4) permits aggrieved persons to knock at the doors of the District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction where such notices or the State Government has notified certain Act.

Further it said “Sub-section (8) (of Section 8) permits any person aggrieved by any notification issued in respect of a place under sub-section (1) (of Section 8) or by an order made under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may within 30 days from the date of notification or order as the case would be, make an application to the Court of District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such notified place is situated.”

Noting that the statement of objections of the State is to that effect that the offices of the petitioner situated in the places where seals have been stamped were all being used by the banned organisation, the Court said,

“The notification by which the Union Government directs the State Government to act in a particular manner cannot be considered in the absence of any evidence. More so, in the light of the contention that the State Government has acted beyond the powers conferred on it would be neither here nor there as the State Government has, on certain inputs to it, imposed seals or clamped upon the offices of the petitioner along with others.”

Court observed that merely because all the offices in Mangalore are sealed and not anywhere else would not mean that evidence would not be required for the petitioner to prove its case in terms of Section 8 of the Act. It held,

“In the teeth of the aforesaid facts which undoubtedly require evidence, I decline to entertain the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge all these contentions before the District Judge who is empowered to consider the issues under the Act itself.”

Case Title: Social Democratic Party of India And Union of India & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 23167 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 178

Date of Order: 16-05-2023

Appearance: Advocate Mohammed Tahir for petitioner.

AAG Aruna Shyam a/w AGA B.V.Krishna for R1 to R3.

DSGI H.Shanthi Bhushan for R4.