Karnataka HC Rejects Plea By SDPI Challenging State Govt’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court has recently rejected a plea by the Social Democratic Party of India challenging the State government’s decision to seal its offices for violation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the notifications issued to seal the offices of the party were issued under Section 8 of UAPA.

The Court said that “The notifications issued to seal the premises of the petitioner by the State Government are undoubtedly under the exercise of power under sub-section (3) and (4) of Section (8) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is statutory & necessarily to be availed of, in the peculiar facts of this case, as the recording of evidence for the acts of the State is imperative.”

Therefore, SDPI moved to the Court after the State government, based on a Central government notification banning the PFI and its associates, sealed its offices in Mangalore after the conclusion PFI was operating from these offices.

Advocate Mohammed Tahir for the petitioners pointed out that SDPI wasn’t one of the organizations that declared to be PFI associates. He then asserted that the action of the State government in searching and sealing PDFI’s offices was illegal. He argued that the State couldn’t have travelled beyond what the notification devolved to it.

Afterward, Additional Advocate General Aruna Shyam M contended that SDPI’s activities were directly linked to PFI, and therefore, the former’s offices were sealed.

Further, he argued that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before a district judge in terms of the provisions of UAPA and hence asked the Court to relegate the matter to a lower court.

Deputy Solicitor General of India H Shanthi Bhushan, appeared for the Central government, which agree with these submissions.

After that, the Court observed that an alternate remedy was available to the petitioners, and clarified that the mere existence of an alternate remedy wouldn’t mean that the writ petition wasn’t maintainable.

However, since the case required evidence’s recording for the acts of the State, therefore the Court dismissed the plea, granting liberty to SDPI to place its contentions before a district judge.

Meera Verma

Recent Posts

Punjab & Haryana HC Notice To Jindal Law School Over AI-Generated Exam Claims

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday has issued a notice to Jindal Global…

2 hours ago

ED Files Money Laundering Complaint Against Charanjit Singh Bajaj, 4 Others

The ED on Tuesday has filed a Prosecution Complaint before the Special Court in Mohali…

3 hours ago

Pune Porsche Case: SC Rejects Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Minor Driver’s Friend

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, whose son is a…

4 hours ago

SC Dumps Plea Against Quashing LOC For Sushant Singh Rajput’s Ex-House Help

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the Centre's appeal against a Bombay High Court order…

4 hours ago

Rape Case: SC Issues Notice On Ex-Army Officer’s Plea For Quashing Charge sheet

The Supreme Court on Tuesday has agreed to review a plea from retired Army Captain…

5 hours ago

Chhattisgarh NAN Scam: FIR Against 2 Retired IAS Officers, Former AG

The Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau on Tuesday has registered a case against 2 retired IAS officers…

5 hours ago