MOHAMMAD JAFAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA

MOHAMMAD JAFAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA

The Central Government failed to provide and communicate distinct, immediate reasons required under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act; the same stale grounds used for the general ban under Section 3(1) cannot justify urgent action; thus, immediate effect portion of notification is invalid and struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 19(4) of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioner: Mohammad Jafar and others; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) and Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition and appeal allowed; part of notification granting immediate effect is struck down; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Freedom of Association, Immediate Banning Under Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, Procedural Fairness, Scope of Government Notification Power
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Fundamental Rights Freedom of Association Immediate Banning Under Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act Procedural Fairness Scope of Government Notification Power

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Jafar and others

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) and Civil Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exercise of power by the Central Government to give immediate effect to notification declaring Jamaat-e-Islami Hind an unlawful association under proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is valid
  2. 2 Scope of ‘for reasons to be stated in writing’ in the proviso to Section 3(3)
  3. 3 Compatibility of immediate banning with Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 19(4) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Central Government failed to provide and communicate distinct, immediate reasons required under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act; the same stale grounds used for the general ban under Section 3(1) cannot justify urgent action; thus, immediate effect portion of notification is invalid and struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(c) read with Article 19(4) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petition and appeal allowed; part of notification granting immediate effect is struck down; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Immediate effect portion of notification (under proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967) is struck down.
  • Decision of the High Court set aside.