Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a challenge to the government notifications whereby the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and others, were declared as 'terrorist organizations' under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the matter, being of the view that instead of challenging the government notifications, individual reliefs (including bail) in the relevant Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case could be sought before the appropriate forum.

"It seems to us that instead of bringing challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner, or for his son, lies in approaching the appropriate forum and make out a case that the activities undertaken by them do not fall within the offending clauses of UAPA and/or that for any other valid reason, they are entitled to be released on bail. We have no reason to doubt that the court of competent jurisdiction will earnestly consider such submissions with reference to prayer for bail and/or any other relief that may be claimed by the petitioner or his son in the pending case(s)", Justice Kant dictated.

It is apposite to mention that the petitioner-Saquib Nachan expired in June, 2025, while serving sentence in another case, following a brain haemorrhage.

The petitioner had earlier appeared in person from Tihar jail through VC to present the matter. The Court had also appointed Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court with the stance of the petitioner.

Today, the Amicus submitted that, according to the petitioner, the terms 'Global Jehad' and 'Caliphate' were wrongly interpreted by the government and there was no material to support the allegation of 'radicalization'. The bench however was not convinced to entertain the challenge.

Justice Bagchi orally remarked that while in the Holy Quran, 'Caliphate' means the 'Kingdom of Allah', in the context of the impugned notifications, 'Caliphate' related to 'terrorist activity'.

Insofar as the Amicus contended on behalf of the petitioner that the term 'terrorist organization' is not defined in the UAPA and therefore the government can only declare an organization as 'unlawful association' under Section 3, Justice Kant noted that the phrase 'terrorist act' is defined and any organization involved in such activities would amount to a 'terrorist organization'.

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of, with liberty to seek remedy available in law before the appropriate forum.

The plea was filed by terror convict Saquib Nachan against government notifications dated 16.02.2015 and 19.06.2018, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby certain organizations were declared as unlawful and "terrorist organizations". He claimed that the notifications were violative of his rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Notably, the petitioner 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 had challenged, dated 16.02.2015, read 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"

As per claims, the petitioner's son was arrested by the National Investigation Agency, Mumbai on allegations of being associated with ISIS. After the petitioner filed the present petition, he was also booked by the authorities in the same case.

On an earlier occasion, the petitioner appeared before the Supreme Court from Tihar jail and explained that his objection was 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", he urged.

Case Title: SAQUIB ABDUL HAMID NACHAN Versus UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1362/2023