FUGITIVE CANNOT MAINTAIN ARTICLE 32 PETITION: SG OBJECTS TO ZAKIR NAIK'S PLEA IN SUPREME COURT
Category: Constitutional
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
BACKGROUND
The Islamic preacher, Zakir Naik, had filed a writ petition in 2013 praying for clubbing multiple FIRs which was registered against him for the hate speech under Section 153A of IPC in Karnataka and Maharashtra. He faces charges under Sections 10, 13, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 153A of IPC for promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Naik is under investigation for many years by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and National Investigation Agency (NIA). In 2017, he was issued a non-bailable warrant by a special NIA court. He then did not appear before the court and is living in Malaysia. In 2022, his Islamic research Foundation (IRF) was declared as an unlawful association under UAPA by the Central Government. The ban was confirmed by one man tribunal mentioning activities that are prejudicial to the sovereignty, unity and security of India. Now, in the recent hearing Naik prayed for combining all the FIRs registered in two states. But the contention was raised by the Solicitor General of State about the maintainability of petition. The bench has allowed the State to file a counter affidavit to raise that objection.
KEY ASPECTS
FUGITIVE’S NON-MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETIION
The Supreme Court had ordered Naik as fugitive. The contention was raised by the Solicitor General for State of Maharashtra that fugitive cannot file petition and ask for remedy under Article 32 and hence there is no maintainability of Writ Petition. The bench allowed to file a counter affidavit to raise objection of the Solicitor General towards the preliminary contention on the issue of maintainability of Writ Petition.
ACTION OF THE COURT ON DEFECTIVE CASES
Solicitor General (SG) also mention about defects in petition and objections such as absence of petitioner’s signature raised by registry. The court said there is no waiving of objections raised by registry and instructed the SG to file the counter which the registry has to accept despite defects. The court confirmed that though cases are defective, hearing of cases and the relief is also granted in such cases.
CONCLUSION
The fugitive, who has taken resort in other foreign country to escape from the legal consequences of the charges on him with respect to hate speeches causing public disorder in society, hatred among the religions and carrying out anti-national activities, declared by the court too to be fugitive then loses his legal rights to claim for his fundamental rights and even to give instructions to the court. He/she will be questioned for the maintainability of the writ petition filed in the court of law. However, courts can still consider to hear the case till the reasonable grounds to set aside the petition is found, applying principles of natural justice.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: SOUJANYA V
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
