ID :
24332
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 14:50
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/24332
The shortlink copeid
SC refers SIMI ban issue to larger bench
New Delhi, Oct 13 (PTI) A matter related to ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (S.I.M.I.) was Monday referred by the Supreme Court to a larger bench.
The ban on S.I.M.I. was in August lifted by a special tribunal whose order was subsequently stayed by the apex court.
The reference was made by a two-judge bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph in view of the fact that a larger bench of three judges of the apex court was already hearing the ban imposed on the S.I.M.I. by the Government in 2001.
The tribunal headed by Delhi High Court judge Justice Geeta Mittal on August 5 had lifted the ban on S.I.M.I. saying no new evidence was placed against the organisation to justify the ban.
However, a day later, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan stayed the tribunal's order and issued notice to S.I.M.I. while asking the Centre to place before it all documents pertaining to the justification of the ban.
The apex court's stay was opposed by Dr Shahid Badr, who was the President of the outfit till September 27, 2001 when the Centre had come out with its first notification to declare it as an proscribed organisation.
The Centre had been extending the ban every two years
since 2001 on the ground that S.I.M.I. was continuing with its
anti-national activities and Badr had earlier challenged the
original ban before the apex court.
Justifying the ban, the Centre had told the Supreme Court
that S.I.M.I. was involved in subversive and anti-national
activities including the recent blasts in Ahmedabad.
The Govt said the tribunal failed to appreciate the
'background note', 'cabinet note' and 'intelligence reports'
before arriving at its decision to lift the ban on the
organisation.
The argument was opposed by Badr's counsel Jaiswal who
said the tribunal had gone into all these three aspects and
was of the view that the averments in them were not supported
by evidence and deposition of the government witnesses.
She said the background note of the Centre's February 7,
2008 notification extending the ban on S.I.M.I. till 2010,
which was placed before the Tribunal in sealed cover, spoke
about nine cases involving its members who were already
acquitted after facing trial in the courts.
However, the apex court had observed "the background
note can be a general statement while issuing the
notification. The background note is only a synopsis which
could be substantiated in future."
The Centre had complained to the apex court that it
had given details about S.I.M.I.'s alleged involvement in the
July 2006 Mumbai train serial blasts to justify the ban, but
the same was ignored by the tribunal.
According to the Centre, the tribunal set up under the
Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, in its 263-page order
has not pressed anything on the merits of the case even when
the government has provided Intelligence Bureau reports
pointing towards members of S.I.M.I. indulging in terrorist
activities.
The ban on S.I.M.I. was in August lifted by a special tribunal whose order was subsequently stayed by the apex court.
The reference was made by a two-judge bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph in view of the fact that a larger bench of three judges of the apex court was already hearing the ban imposed on the S.I.M.I. by the Government in 2001.
The tribunal headed by Delhi High Court judge Justice Geeta Mittal on August 5 had lifted the ban on S.I.M.I. saying no new evidence was placed against the organisation to justify the ban.
However, a day later, an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan stayed the tribunal's order and issued notice to S.I.M.I. while asking the Centre to place before it all documents pertaining to the justification of the ban.
The apex court's stay was opposed by Dr Shahid Badr, who was the President of the outfit till September 27, 2001 when the Centre had come out with its first notification to declare it as an proscribed organisation.
The Centre had been extending the ban every two years
since 2001 on the ground that S.I.M.I. was continuing with its
anti-national activities and Badr had earlier challenged the
original ban before the apex court.
Justifying the ban, the Centre had told the Supreme Court
that S.I.M.I. was involved in subversive and anti-national
activities including the recent blasts in Ahmedabad.
The Govt said the tribunal failed to appreciate the
'background note', 'cabinet note' and 'intelligence reports'
before arriving at its decision to lift the ban on the
organisation.
The argument was opposed by Badr's counsel Jaiswal who
said the tribunal had gone into all these three aspects and
was of the view that the averments in them were not supported
by evidence and deposition of the government witnesses.
She said the background note of the Centre's February 7,
2008 notification extending the ban on S.I.M.I. till 2010,
which was placed before the Tribunal in sealed cover, spoke
about nine cases involving its members who were already
acquitted after facing trial in the courts.
However, the apex court had observed "the background
note can be a general statement while issuing the
notification. The background note is only a synopsis which
could be substantiated in future."
The Centre had complained to the apex court that it
had given details about S.I.M.I.'s alleged involvement in the
July 2006 Mumbai train serial blasts to justify the ban, but
the same was ignored by the tribunal.
According to the Centre, the tribunal set up under the
Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, in its 263-page order
has not pressed anything on the merits of the case even when
the government has provided Intelligence Bureau reports
pointing towards members of S.I.M.I. indulging in terrorist
activities.
