Terror Convict Moves Supreme Court Challenging Govt Notifications Declaring ISIS Terrorist Organization
The Supreme Court is set to hear after 2 weeks a plea filed by terror convict Saquib Nachan seeking quashing of two government notifications which declared the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others as terrorist organizations.A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan began to hear today petitioner-Saquib Nachan(who appeared virtually from Tihar jail), but...
The Supreme Court is set to hear after 2 weeks a plea filed by terror convict Saquib Nachan seeking quashing of two government notifications which declared the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and others as terrorist organizations.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan began to hear today petitioner-Saquib Nachan(who appeared virtually from Tihar jail), but the matter had to be adjourned as the latter's online connection broke and he was no longer audible. It has been listed after 2 weeks, at which time the jail authorities are directed to ensure that the petitioner has proper online connection available.
Notably, Saquib Nachan was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in jail in connection with three Mumbai bomb blasts between 2002-03. In 2017, he was released after completion of his sentence. In 2023, the NIA arrested him in a case related to Pune ISIS module.
One of the notifications he has challenged, dated 16.02.2015, reads thus,
"the Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and Levant/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Daish, a terrorist outfit operating in Iraq and neighbouring countries, has been resorting to terrorist actions to consolidate its position in that area by recruiting youth for 'Global Jehad' to achieve the objective of establishing its own 'caliphate' by overthrowing democratically elected governments, besides resorting to terrorism in the form of killing of innocent civilians and security forces"
At the outset of today's hearing, the bench offered to appoint an Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist. In reply, the petitioner stated that he wishes to argue the case in person, however, the Court may appoint an Amicus if it so deems fit.
Beginning arguments, the petitioner said that he has challenged two notifications, one dated 16.02.2015 and another of 2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby certain organizations were declared as unlawful and "terrorist organizations".
"You want us to declare that ISIS, ISIL, these should not be treated as terrorist organizations?" queried Justice Kant, upon hearing the submission.
Clarifying that he was not agitating on behalf of any organization, the petitioner informed that on 11.08.2023, his son was arrested in a National Investigation Agency case. "When the chargesheet was filed, I came to know that he has been roped in a case under the organization ISIS...", he urged.
The petitioner explained that his objection is regarding "targeting" of certain ideologies and terminologies of the Holy Quran and Caliphate: "Government can ban any organization, I have no objection to it...but what I strongly object is that, government can't target Quran and Quranic ideologies. It can say this organization has been doing terrorist activities in the name of Islam, or like that, but they can't say that Jihad is going on and the Caliphate is being undertaken...I feel Article 25 guarantees have been violated".
However, Justice Kant countered that as per the petition, this was not the relief being sought and nowhere did the petitioner challenge his son's arrest. The judge further questioned how Article 25 guarantees stood violated qua the petitioner.
At this point, the petitioner drew the court's attention to certain averments contained in the impugned notifications, saying, "it says that ISIS is recruiting for global jehad, it can say they are doing terrorist activities...but it can't say it's global jehad". He contended that Holy Quran has been "defamed and targeted" and resultantly, there is persecution of a particular community.
When the bench enquired if the petition was filed in public interest, or seeking personal relief, the petitioner replied that it was seeking personal relief. He also alleged that he was arrested within 3 days of filing of the present petition.
"How can a person sitting in an office decide to call something he thinks is terrorism as 'jehad'...similarly, they are talking about Caliphate...", the petitioner urged.
At this point, Justice Datta questioned the petitioner over the lack of specific averments in his petition regarding the "objectionable" words (Jihad and Caliphate) contained in the notifications. "What does the Holy Quran say about these two words? Where have you said that in your petition?"
As the petitioner started to refer to Quranic verses, the bench explained to him that specific averments regarding his objections were missing in the petition and the court can only ascertain his case from the petition (the material he was referring to not being on record).
"You are reading from some reference which we don't have...it is not pleaded in the petition", said Justice Datta.
Supplementing, Justice Kant added, "...you have some book now with you, from where you are saying page 110 or...we don't know if it's a commentary on the Holy Quran or the Holy Quran itself...or if you are reading some author's book...or a translation...the point is, whatever you are arguing now, you have not said anything about this in your petition which is before us. We can understand your case only from the petition which you have filed".
Subsequently, as the petitioner's audio was lost, the matter got adjourned.
Case Title: SAQUIB ABDUL HAMID NACHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1362/2023