Why Functions Of UAPA Tribunal Can't Be Equated With Role Of Civil Court? Delhi High Court Answers In PFI Case
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the functions assigned to a Tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA Tribunal) cannot be equated with the functions of a civil court.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the function assigned to the UAPA Tribunal is to decide the reference made to it by the Central Government as to whether or not there exists sufficient cause for declaring an association as unlawful, and does not extend to deciding the lis between the parties like a civil court.
“….rather, the function of the Tribunal is, in a way, to confirm the declaration made by the Central Government under Section 3(1) of the Act,” the Court said.
The Bench made the observations while holding as maintainable a plea filed by Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging an order of UAPA Tribunal confirming the five-year ban imposed on it.
The Court noted that the UAPA Tribunal has power to regulate its own procedure in all matters arising out of the discharge of its functions, including the place or places at which it holds its sittings but it will not have all the powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Further, the Court said that the function assigned to the UAPA Tribunal cannot be said to be akin to the function which are assigned and discharged by a civil court for the reason that primary role assigned to the Tribunal is to confirm the notification declaring an association to be unlawful association.
It said that the declaration made by the Central Government does not become final merely on its notification in the official gazette as it shall not have effect until the Tribunal, by an order made under Section 4, confirms the same.
“Thus, the scheme contained in Section 3(1), 3(3), read with Section 4 and 9 of the Act, leads us to observe that any declaration made by the Central Government under Section 3(1) attains finality only on confirmation of such notification by the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act. In this view, we express our opinion that functions assigned to the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to be similar or akin to the functions assigned to a civil court under ordinary civil law,” the Court said.
It concluded that the High Court will have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari sought against the order passed by the UAPA Tribunal confirming the declaration made under Section 3(1) of the Act by the Central Government.
“It is also to be noticed that in a case where an organization in respect of which a notification of declaration under Section 3(1) of the Act has been issued that has been later confirmed by the Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act, if challenge is made to the order of the Tribunal, such challenge would also amount to challenge to the declaration made by the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Act declaring the association as unlawful association,” the Court said.
It added that it will be anomalous to hold that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be available for issuing a writ of certiorari against the order of the UAPA Tribunal, though it will be available against the action of the Central Government taken by declaring an association to be unlawful under Section 3(1) of the Act.
“As far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition against the order of the Tribunal will not be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, we may only observe that the Tribunal cannot be termed to be an entity over which this Court can exercise superintendence in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the simple reason that the Tribunal is presided over by a sitting High Court Judge and that in terms of Section 5(5) of the Act, the Tribunal has the powers to regulate its own procedure in all matters including the place or places where it may hold its sittings,” the Court said.
“Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives power of superintendence by the High Court over all Courts and Tribunals which exist within the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction. If the Tribunal is empowered to hold its sitting outside the territories of Delhi, holding that this Court will have the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will be nothing but a fallacy,” it added.
Case Title: Popular Front of India v. Union of India