The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea challenging two government notifications that declared ISIS and its associated ideological expressions as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi stated that it was “not inclined” to interfere with the notifications issued in February 2015 and June 2018 under Section 35 of the UAPA.
Court’s Observation on Religious Terms
The bench clarified that certain religious terms cited in the notifications—such as ‘caliphate’ and ‘jihad’—must be interpreted in the context of terrorist activity rather than scripture.
“When the notification used the word ‘caliphate’, it was in relation to terrorist activity. So, it has to be read in that context,” the bench observed.
Petitioner’s Case
The plea was filed by Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan, who claimed that both he and his son were wrongfully arrested over alleged ISIS links. He argued that these notifications violated his fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25.
The court was informed that:
-
The petitioner was arrested after filing the plea.
-
His son had earlier been detained by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on similar allegations.
The amicus curiae, assisting the court, argued that equating terms like “caliphate” and “jihad” with terrorism misinterprets religious expressions and infringes upon constitutional rights. The amicus also referred to Quranic meanings of these terms to support this claim.
Supreme Court’s Stand
Rejecting these arguments, the bench stated that such grievances should be addressed before the competent criminal court:
“The option of seeking bail or other reliefs is open to the petitioner before the appropriate forum,” the court said.
The bench also noted that while unlawful associations declared under UAPA are reviewed by a tribunal, no such mechanism currently exists for reviewing the designation of terrorist organisations under Section 35.
Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court made it clear that the remedy for the petitioner and his son lies in approaching the appropriate criminal forum rather than challenging the notifications themselves.
