1 year ago
Supreme Court Upholds ISIS Terrorist Designation, Rejects Plea
The Supreme Court has said it's okay to call ISIS a terrorist group.
A man named Saquib Nachan tried to stop this, saying it wasn't fair.
He said they used words like 'Caliphate' and 'Jihad' wrongly to label ISIS.
The court disagreed.
They said if a group does terrorist things, it's a terrorist group, no special name needed.
The court told Nachan to ask for bail in a different court if he or his son had any problems.
The judge explained that the words like "Caliphate" are used by the group in their terrorist activity context.
Supreme Court rejected Saquib Nachan's challenge to ISIS's terrorist designation under UAPA.
Nachan argued the notifications violated his Article 25 rights and misinterpreted 'Caliphate' and 'Jihad'.
The court stated it's better for those aggrieved to seek bail elsewhere.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta mentioned Nachan and his son were arrested.
Justice Kant said any group doing terrorist acts is considered a terrorist organization.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, Saquib Nachan, and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) were involved.
- What
- The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging ISIS's classification as a terrorist organization.
- Where
- The case was heard in the Supreme Court.
- When
- The Supreme Court made its decision on Tuesday, regarding notifications from February 16, 2015, and June 19, 2018.
- Why
- Nachan challenged the classification, arguing it violated his rights and misconstrued religious terms, but the court rejected his plea.
Saquib Nachan's Position
Supreme Court's Position
Constitutional Rights
Saquib Nachan's Position
The notifications designating ISIS as a terrorist organization violated Saquib Nachan's rights under Article 25.
Supreme Court's Position
The Supreme Court rejected Nachan's argument, saying his remedy was seeking bail elsewhere.
Interpretation of Religious Terms
Saquib Nachan's Position
The terms 'Caliphate' and 'Jihad' were wrongly used in the notification to associate with terrorism.
Supreme Court's Position
The court stated that these terms were to be read in the context of terrorist activity.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Saquib Nachan
- Legal Act
- Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967
- Organizations Mentioned
- ISIS
- Date of Notifications
- February 16, 2015, and June 19, 2018
- Senior Advocate
- Mukta Gupta
- Judges
- Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
Quotes
The bench
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
“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.”
indianexpress.com
“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)”
indianexpress.com
Justice Kant
Justice Surya Kant
“You don’t need a separate nomenclature for that.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
PMLA Court Allows Lawyer Presence During Aakif Nachan Interrogation
Pakistan Punjab Police Arrest 18 Terror Suspects After Raids
ED Raids Bengaluru Premises Over ISIS Funding
Threatening ISIS poster in Meghalaya sparks concern
Mirza Waheed's Novel Explores Mother's Grief and Faith
