A day after Delhi High Court Special Tribunal’s decision to lift ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), the Supreme Court on Wednesday came up with different approach maintaining ban on the organisation.
The bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan allowing a petition from the Centre seeking a grant of interim stay overturned the tribunal's order and issued a notice to SIMI. The bench posted the matter for next hearing after three weeks. CJI Balakrishnan agreed with the Centre’s contention that lifting of ban was not in national interest.
SIMI, a controversial organisation allegedly involved in deadly bombings was given benefit of doubt by the tribunal headed by Delhi High Court Judge, Geeta Mittal, who on Tuesday had refused to extend seven-year ban on the organisation, saying the government had been unable to present any new evidence in support of its claim that SIMI was indulged in illegal activities.
The tribunal repealed the 7th February notification issued by the Union Government extending the ban on SIMI beyond 6 months under the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act. It said the Centre failed to provide fresh evidences that could justify its claim on prolonged banning.
Justice Mittal noticed that government’s claim of extending ban was merely based on Malegaon blast in 2006, which was not sufficient to issue notification regarding extension of ban.
The ban was first imposed on the SIMI in 2001 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and since then it has been extended after every two years.
The last notification on the ban, which was issued by the Home Ministry on February 7 this year and had to be in operation till 2010, met with challenge in the tribunal.
Soon after passing the judgment on Tuesday by the tribunal, the Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal had on early Wednesday said he would defy the order in the Supreme Court, if necessary. He said prima facie it seems the objection was made on technical grounds.
Within hours of issuing statement a petition was filed in the Apex Court.
|
Read More: Delhi
Comments: