Holding

The provision granting immediate effect to a declaration of an unlawful association under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is invalid unless the government supplies distinct, urgent reasons in writing and communicates them to the association.

Summary

The Central Government, on 10 December 1992, declared the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JEIH) an unlawful association under Section 3(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and invoked the proviso to Section 3(3) to give the ban immediate effect. The petitioners challenged this exercise of power, arguing that the government had not provided distinct, urgent reasons for the immediate ban and that the ban violated the freedom of association guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court examined the statutory language of the proviso, held that "reasons to be stated in writing" must be communicated to the affected association, and that the reasons supplied were the same as those for the ordinary ban and were stale. It concluded that the government failed to justify the immediacy required by the proviso and that the immediate‑effect clause was unconstitutional without such justification. Consequently, the portion of the notification granting immediate effect was struck down, and the petition and connected appeal were allowed.

Issues considered

The Central Government may declare an association unlawful with immediate effect under the proviso to Section 3(3) of the UAPA only if it furnishes distinct, urgent reasons in writing.
Whether the reasons for the immediate ban must be communicated to the association, not merely recorded in the government file.
Whether an immediate ban without such reasons violates Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution unless justified under Article 19(4).
The proper interpretation of the phrase "for reasons to be stated in writing" in the statute.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(c), s. Article 19(4)
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s. 10, s. 11, s. 13, s. 2(a), s. 2(f), s. 2(g), s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 3(3), s. 4, s. 5, s. 9

Subjects

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Actimmediate banfreedom of associationArticle 19constitutional validitynotificationreasons to be stated in writingtribunal

Judgment

\
\

MOHAMMAD JAFAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA

MAR CH 18, 11/94

[P.B. SAWANT ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] B

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 : Sections 3( 1) and (2}-
Proviso-Section 3(3)-Proviso-Sections 4, 10, ll and 13-{fnlawful As-
sociation-Central Government-Notification under Section 3(1) declaring
Jamatee-e-lslami Hind an Unlawful Association-Reasons for ban- C
Notification given immediate effect under Proviso to Sub-section (3 }-No
additional reasons given for giving immediate effect to notification-Reasons
given for notification under Section 3( 1) relied on for giving immediate effect
to Notificatiion under Proviso to Section 3(3)-Exercise of Power by Govern-
ment under Proviso to Section 3(3}-Whether valid-Held Government D
should justify its power under Proviso by adducing proper reasons-For jus-
tification of immediate ban something distinct and different should be in
L-._ possession of Govenunent--Reasons should be cdmmunicated to Assocation.

Section 3(3}-Provis~xpression 'For reasons to be stated in
writing'-Scope of E
Constitution of India, 1950 : Pait-III-Fundamental Rights-Article
19(J)(c}-Even temporary suspension of right is invalid unless covered by
Article 19(4).

Words and Phrases 'To State' and 'To Record'-Meaning of and F
distinction between.

By a notilicati'on dated 10th December, 1992, the Central Govern-
ment declared the Jamatee-e-Islami Hind (JEJH)·an unlawful association
under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) G
Act, 1967. Four grounds were given in support of the Notification viz., (1)

-
that the Amir of JEIH declared in a meeting at Delhi held on 27th May,
1990 that the separation of Kashmir from India was inevitable; (2) that
Naib-Amir of JEIH in a meeting at Malerkotla on 1st August, 1991
observed that Government of India should hold plebiscite on Kashmir; (3)
that the JEIH had been disclaiming and questioning the sovereignity and H
111
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.
t
A territorial integrity of India, and (4) that other facts and materials in the
possession of the Central Government \\'ere of such nature which it con~
siders to be against the public interest to disclose. The Central Govern-
ment also gave immediate effect to the notification in exercise of its powers
under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. However, no
additional reasons were given for declaring the JEIH as an unlawful
B association with immediate effect, viz., from the date of the publication of
the notification. On the other hand, for taking immediate action under the
said proviso it relied on the same reasons which prompted it to declare
JEIH as unlawful association under sub-section (1) of Section 3. The
Secretary General of the JEIH filed a Writ Petition in this Conrt challeng-
e ing the exercise of the powers by the Government under the proviso to
sub-section (3) of Section 3. In the connected appeal also the same con·
troversy was involved.

Allowing tl.e Petition and Appeal, this Court

D HELD : 1. The Government has failed to justify the immediate ban
imposed under the proviso to section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1957. The part of the notification, viz., "and directs, in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of that
section, that this notification shall have effect from the date of its publi·
E cation in the official gazette", is bad in law and is struck down. (123-C-D]

2. For justification of the immediate ban under the proviso in
question, something distinct and different which calls for the urgent step
has to be in possession of the Central Government and the same has to be
communicated to the Association. The need for communication of such
F reasons is all the more because of the provisions of Sections 10, 11 and 13
which visit with the penalty for being members of an unlawful association,
for dealing with funds of such association, and prescribes punishment for
the unlawful activities of such persons, respectively. (123-A-B]

3. There is no material w~irh makes out a case for immediate ban
G under the said proviso. The material is the same for ban under section

-
3(1). The first two grounds are obviously stale • one of 27.5.1990 and the
other of 1.8.1991 and they cannot justify immediacy on 10.12.1992 when the
impugned notification was issued. The language of the third ground shows
that the association has been indulging in the acts stated therein publicly
H from its inception or at least for a long time which again negatives the
MOHD.JAFAR v. U.O.I. 113

need for immediate ban. As for the last ground, viz., other facts and A
material in its possession which the Central Government considers to be
against the public interest to disclose, no privilege is claimed before this
Court against such other facts and material. (123-A, 121-B-C-D]

4.1. The fundamental right of the citizens and the associations
cannot be taken away even temporarily for reasons which are not known B
to the individual or the association. (122-B]

4.2. The provisions of the Act banning an organisation with immedi,
ate effect without giving it an opportunity to represent its case would be
violative of the Constitution being in breach of the provisions of Article 19
(l)(c), unless such ban has been covered by the exception enacted by
c
clasuse (4) of the said Article. The invocation of the proviso to sub-section
(3) of Section 3 has a drastic effect of curtailing the freedom under Article
19 (1) (c) with immediate effect. If such a ban is imposed arbitrarily it
would operate till at least the date of the publication of the Tribunal's
order under Section 4(4). Thus the action taken under the proviso D
amounts to suspension of the citizens right under Article 19(1) (c), for the
period in question. Even a temporary suspension of the fundamental right,
unless it is covered by the exception provided under Article 19(4), would
be invalid in law. [119-H; 120-B-C]

4.3. Hence it is necessary that the Central Government justifies its
E
action under the proviso by bringing it within the exception of Article
19(4). Thus, both by the language of the proviso as well as by the require-
ment of the Constitution, it is necessary for the Central Government to
justify by adducing proper reasons, the immediacy by bringing it within
the purview of Article 19(4). [120-C-D] F
5. It cannot be said that the experession 'for reasons to be stated in
writing' did not necessarily mean that the reasons have to be stated in the ·
notification and that it is enough if the reasons are noted 011 the file of .ile
case. The expression 'to state' is obviously different from the expression
'to record'. 'To state' has a distinct connotation of informing the party for G
whom the statement is meant. No one makes a statement to himself. Hence,
the Act requires that either it has to be stated in the notification or in a
communication accompanying the notification or simultaneously issued
)
with the notification or addressed to the affected association. Reas<jns
which are 'recorded' in file are not reasons wh!ch are stated for the benefit H
)

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A of the aggrieved party. The intention of the legislature is that the aggrieved
party must know the reasons why the grave step of banning it is taken
without giving it an opportunity to be heard. (121-E-G-H; 122-A)

C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors., (1933] 1 S.C.C. 78, referred to.

B 6. The proviso to Section 3(3) envisages a situation which has to be
remedied urgently and cannot be met except by putting an end to the
activities of the organisation with immediate effect. It requires firstly that
. the Government must be of opinion (i) that circumstances exist which
render it necessary for the Government to declare the association to be
unlawful with immediate effect and (ii) the reasons for such declaration
c must be stated in writing. The language of the proviso is different from the
language of sub-section (1) of Section 3 whkh merely states that the
Governinent has to be of opinion that any association is or has become an
unlawful association. The very fact that the Legislature has provided a
machinery in the form of the Tribunal to hold a full-fledged inquiry to
D adjudicate on the issue whether the notilicatiun issued under Section 3(1)
should be confirmed or cancelled, shows that the Legislature has no
intention of banning an-organisation and its activities without giving it a
due opportunity to show cause and represent its case fully. (199-E·F ·G]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 40/93.
E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Soli. J. Sorabjec, V.M. Tarkunde, Raju Ramachandran, M.D. Adkar,
Ejaj Maqbool and Brij K. Mishra for the Petitioner.

F K.T.S. Tulsi, A.S.G. PP Malhotra, P. Parmeshearan, Ms. A. Sub-
hashini, T.C. Sharma and Surya Kant for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SAWANT, J. The petitioner in the writ petition is the Secretary
G General of .Jamatcc-e-lslami Hind [.TEIHJ which is an all India organisa-
tion. Appellants in the civil appeal are the Presidents of Bihar Zone and
Patna Circle of the said JEIH. On 10th December, 1992, the Central
Govcrn1ncnt issued a notification declaring the .JEIH an unla\vful associa~
ti on under sub-section (J) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Preven-
H tion) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also gave
MOHD.JAFAR v. U.0.1.[SAWANTJ.J 115

immediate effect to the nitification in exercise of the po\VCrs conferred by A
the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The challenge in the
present \Vrit petition and the appeal has been restricted to the cxerci.'ic of
the powers under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 3. The con-
troversy, therefore, lies in a narrow compass.

2. The scheme of the Act so far as it is relevant for our present
B
purpose is as follows :

Under sub-section (1) of Section 3 the Central Government is em-
powered to declare any association as unlawful, by notification in the
Official Gazette, which association in its opinion is or has become unlawful. C
11
Section 2 (a) defines 'association' to mean any combination or body of
individuals". Section 2 (f) defines 'unlawful activity·· in relation to an in-
dividual or association to mean 11 any action taken by such individual or
association, whether by committing an act or by words either spoken or
written or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, which (i) is D
intended, or supports any claim to bring about, on any ground "'·hatsoever,
the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of
the territory of India from the Union, or which iricites any individual or
group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession 1 or (ii)
disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of India". Section 2 (g) defines 'unlawful association' to E
mean "any association which (i) has for its objects any unlawful activity, or
which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of
which the members undertake such activity; or (ii) has for its object any
activity which is punishable under section 153-A or section 153-B of the
Indian Penal Code, or \vhich encourages or aids persons to undertake any F
such activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity'1•

Section 3(2) requires that the notification issued under Section 3(1)
.shal1 specify the grounds nn \vhich it is issued and such other particulars
as the Central Government 1nay consider necessary. The proviso to sub-
section (2) of the said Section states that nothing in the said sub-section G
shall require the Central Government to disclose any fact which it con-
siders to be against the public interest to disclose. Sub-section (3) of
Section 3 states that no such notification shall have effect until the Tribunal
has by an order made under Section 4, confirmed the declaration made
therein and the order is published in the Official Gazette. The proviso to H
I
)

LJ(, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119941 :1 S.C.R.

A suh-scctinn (:1) of the said section \Vhich falls for consideration bcfnrc us
thi:n st<.Jtcs as follo\\'S :

"Pro\·i<lc<l that if the Central Go\·ernment is of opinion that
circu111stances exist \vhich render it necessary for that Government
to declare an association to be unhnvful \vith imn1cdiate effect. it
B n1ay, f{)f reasnns to be sated in \Vriting, direct that the notification
sha!J, subject to any order that may be made under Section 4, have
effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."

Section 4 makes a provision requiring the Central Government to
refer the notification declaring an association unlawful, to the Tribunal
c within 30 days from the date of the publication, for the purpose of ad-
judicating whether or not there is sufficient cause for declaring the associa-
tion unlawful. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 requires the Tribunal on receipt
of the reference to call upon such association to show cause within 30 days
from the date of the service of the show cause notice, why the association
D should not be declared unlawful. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 then requires
the Tribunal to consider the cause, if any, shown by the association or its
office hearers or members, and to hold an inquiry in the manner specified
in Section 9 of the Act and to adjudicate the issue as to whether there is
sufficient cause or not for declaring the association to be unlawful, as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from
E
the date of the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3,
and make such order as it deems fit either confirming the declaration made
in the notification or cancelling the same. The order so made by the
Tribunal has to be published in the Official Gazette as required by sub-
"'°lion ( 4) of the said section.
F
The adjudicating Tribunal known as the 'Unlawful Activities -·
(Prevention) Tribunal' consisting of one person to be appointed by the
Central Government is constituted as per the provisions of Section 5 of the
.A.ct. The person constituting the ·rribunal has to be a Judge of the High
Court. Sub.section (5) of Section 5 gives po\ver to the Tribunal to regulate
G
its O\vn procedure in all n1atters arising out of the discharge of its functions.
Sub- section (6) of the said section read with Section 9 vests the Tribunal
\Vi th the po\vcr of Ihe civil court as laid do,vn in the Code of 1:ivil
Procedure for the purpose of holding the inquiry.

H Section 10 visits any person \Vho is or continues to be a memb1:r of.
\
\.
MOHD.JAfAR "· U.0.1. [SAWANT . .T.] 117

an association \vhich is declared unla,vful or takes part in the meeting of A
such association or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for
the purpose or such associatio_n or in any \Vay assists Ihe operations of such
association, \Vith puni:;J~n1ent of an imprisonn1ent for a term \Vhich may
extend to t\VO years 1 and also with fine. Section 11 like\vise in1poscs a
penalty for dealing with the funds of such association while Section 13
imposes punishment on any one who takes part in or commits 1 or advo-
B
cates, abets, advises or incites the commission of any unla,vful activity in
any \Vay, of such association. It is not necessary to refer to any other
provision of the Act for our present purpose.

3. The impugned notification reads as follows : c
"Whereas Shri Sirajul Hasan, Amir of the Jamaal- e-lslami
Hind (heareinafter referred to as JEJH) declared in a meeting at
Delhi held on the 27th May, 1990 that the separation of Kashmir
from India was inevitable :
D
And whereas Shri Abdul Aziz, Naib-Amir of JEIH, addressing
a meeting at Malerkotla on the 1st August, 1991, observed that the
Government of India should hold plebiscite on Klishmir;

And \vhercas JEIH has been disclaiming and questioning the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of India;
E

And \vhcrcas for all or any of the grounds set out in the
preceding paragraphs, as also on the basis of other facts, and
materials in its possession \vhich the Central Government con-
siders to be against the public intercs1 to disclose, the Central F
Government i.e. of the opinion that the JEIH is an unla\vful associa-
•
tion;

No\\', therefore, in exercise of the pO\\'crs confcrrc<l by sub-sec-
tion (l) of section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 (37 of 1967), the Central Government hereby declares the G
'Jan1aat-e-lslan1i Hind' to be an unla\vful association, and directs,
in exercise of the po\vcrs conferred by the proviso to sub-section
(3) of that section, that this notification shall, subject to any order
that may be made under section 4 of the said Act, have effeel from
the date of its publication in the Official Gazette". H
)

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A It is apparent from the notification that no additional reasons have
been given for declaring the JEIH as an unlawful association with imme-
diate effect, viz., from the date of the publication of the notification. In
other words, the Central Government does not give any further or added
reasons for immediacy. On the contrary, it relies on the .same reasons which
are stated in the notification for taking immediate action under the proviso
B to sub-section (3) of Section 3 which prompted it to declare JEIH as
unlawful under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Before us also, it is not the
case of the Union of India that it has some facts and material in its
possesssion lo declare it unlawful with immediate effect in addition to the
facts and material for taking action against JEIH under sub-section (1) of
c Section 3. The question, therefore, is whether the Central Government has
to have facts and material showing the need for immediate action under
the provis.o to sub-section (3) of Section 3 which are in addition to and
distinct from those which are necessary for taking action under sub-section
(1) of Section 3. We may here reproduce sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of
D Section 3. They read as under :

"(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that any association
is, or has become, an unlawful association, it may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, declare such association to be unlawful.

E (2) Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it is
issued and such other particulars as the Centrnl Government may
consider ne'cessary.

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require the
Central Government to disclose any fact which it considers to be
F against the public interest to disclose.

(3) No such notification shall have effect until the Tribunal has, by
an order made under Section 4, confirmed the declaration made
therein and the order is published in the Official Gazette :
G Provided that if the Central Government is of opinion that
circumstances exist which render it necessary for that Government
to declare an association to be unlawful with immediate effect, it
may, for reasons to be stated in writing, direct that the notification
shall, subject to any order that may be made under Section 4, have
H effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette."
\

\
MOHD.JAFAR v. U.0.1.[SAWANTJ.] 119

An analysis of the aforesaid provisions shows that for the purpose of A
declaring an association unlawful, the Central Government has to have
material on the basis of which it forms its opinion that the association is
or has become unlawful. The declaration is to he made by a notification.
Such a notification has to specify the grounds on which the declaration is
made and also such other particulars as the Central Government may
consider necessary. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 only enacts
B
the usual privilege clause which entitles the Central Government not to
disclose such fact as it considers to be against the public interest to
disclose. The main provision of sub-section (3) then makes it clear that
such a notification shall not have effect until the Tribunal after a due
adjudication has confirmed the notification. As pointed out above, there is c
enough time-lag between the date of the issue of notification under Section
3 (1) and the date of the publication of the order of the Tribunal under
Section 4(4). The proviso vests the Central Government with a power to
declare an organisation unlawful with immediate effect. This means that all
its activities come to an end the moment the notification is issued under D
Section 3(1) even without waiting for the due adjudication of the Tribunal
• under Section 4. It has obviously a situation in mind which cannot brook
delay and await the outcome of the adjudication. The proviso, therefore,
envisages a situation which has to be remedied urgently and cannot be met
except by putting an end to the activities of the organisation with immediate
effect. The legislative intention to that effect is also clear otherwise. The E
proviso requires firstly that the Government .must be of opinion (i) that
ciTCiiffistances exist which render it necessary for the Government to
declare the association to be unlawful with immediate effect and (ii) the
reasons for such declaration must be stated in writing. The language of the
said proviso is different from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 3 F
which merely states that the Government has to be of opinion that any
association is or has bec9me an unlawful association. The very fact further
that the legislature has provided a machinery in the form of the Tribunal
to hold a fullfledged inquiry to adjudicate on the issue whether the notifica-
tion issued under Section 3 (1) should be confirmed or cancelled, shows
that the legislature has no intention of banning an organisation and its G
activities \Vithout giving it a due opportunity to sho\v cause and represent
its case fully. It must be remembered in this connection that Article
19(1)( c) of the Constitution incorporates one of the precious freedoms of
the citizens, viz., to for1n associations or unions. The provisions of the Act
• H
J
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A banning an organisation with immediate effect without giving it an oppor-
tunity to represent its case would be violative of the Constitution being ii
breach of the provisions of the said Article, unless such ban has bee 1
covered by the exception enacted by clause ( 4) of the said Article. It cannc t
be over-emphasised that the invocation of the proviso to sub-section (3) ,,f
Section 3 has a drastic effect of curtailing the freedom under Article 19
B (1)( c) with immediate effect. If such a ban is imposed arbitrarily it would
operate till at least the date of the publication of the Tribunal's order umkr
Section 4 (4). Thus the action taken under the proviso amounts to suspe11-
sion of the citizens' right under Article 19(l)(c), for the period in questio:1.
Even a temporary suspension of the fundamental right, unless it is cover<d
c by the exception provided under Article 19(4), would be invalid in la•v.
Hence it is necessary that the Central Government justifies its action und1~r
the said proviso by bringing it within the exception of Article 19(4). Th• JS
both by the language of the said proviso as well as by the requirement )f
the Consitution, it is necessary for the Central Government to justify by
adducing proper reasons, the immediacy by bringing it within the purvic w
D
of Article 19(4) which reads as follows:
•
"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, e .c.

x x x x x x
E
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or moraHy,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
F the said sub-clause''.

Article 19(4) thus requires that the immediate action contempla1 ed
by the said proviso is "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India or public order or morality The Article further requires the restric-
1
'.

G tions imposed even for the said purpose, to be reasonable.

4. The notification in question admittedly does not give any reas )ns
for the immediate ban in exercise o( the po\ver under the proviso to Sect ion
3(3). The reasons given as stated above are the same as are meant for
imposing ban under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Those reasons, as qucted •
H above, are (a) that Shri Sirajul Hasan, Amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
MOHD. JAFAR;: U.0.1. [SAWANT.I.] 121

declared in a meeting at Delhi held on the 27th May, 1990 that the A
separation of Kashmir from India was inevitable, (b) that Shri Abdul Aziz,
Naib-Amir of JEIH, addressing a meeting at Malerkotla on the 1st August,
1991, observed that the Government of India should hold plebiscite on
Kashmir, (c) that the JEIH has been disclaiming and questioning the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, and ( d) other facts and B
materials in the possession of the Central Government which it considers
to be against the public interest .to disclose. As regards the first two
grounds, they are obviously stale - one of 27.5.1990 and the other of
1.8.1991 and they cannot justify immediacy on 10.12.1992 when the im-
pugned notification was issued. The language of the third ground shows
that the association has been indulging in the acts stated therein publicly C
from its inception or at least for a long time which again negatives the need
for immediate ban. As for the last ground, viz., other facts and material in
its possession which the Central Government considers to be against the
public interest to disclose, no privilege is claimed before us, against such
other facts and material. If it was claimed, the Court would have looked D
into them and decided the question of privilege.

5. Shri Tulsi, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that
the expression 11 for reasons to be stated in writing11 did not necessarily mean
that the reasons have to be stated in the notification. It is enough if the
reasons are noted on the file of the case. We are unable to agree with the E
learned counsel. The expression 11 to state1' is obviously different from the
e:x.-pression 11 to record 11 • The word 'state' is defined in New Collins Concise
Dictio1101y to mean ".... 19. to declare, formally or publicly..... ". It is defined
in Shorter Oxford English Dictionmy (Third Edn.) as "..... 5. To declare in
\Vords; to represent (a matter) in all the circumstances of modification; to
F
set out fully or in a definite form 1647. b. To specify ..... ".

In Black's Law Dictionmy (Fifth Edn.) as "To express the particulars
nf ;1 thing in \Vriting or in \Vords: to set. dO\Vn or set forth iq detail; to aver,
allege, or declare. To set do\vn in gross; to nlention in general terms, or by
\Vay of reference; to refer 11 • "To statc' 1 therefore, has a distinct connotation G
of inforn1ing the party for \vhom the staten1cnt is meant. No one makes a
statement to himself. Hence, the Act requires that either it has to be stated
in the notification or in a communication accompanying the notification or
>
simultaneously issued \Vith the notification or addressed to the affetted
association. Reasons \Vhich are "recorded" in file are not reasons whichifare H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A stated for the benefit of the aggrieved party. The intention of the legislature
is that the aggrrieved party must know the reasons why the grave step of
banning it is taken without giving it an opportunity to be heard. If the
reasons are non-existent or irrelevant, the association has a right to chal-
lenge the same by showing cause against it. The fundamental .right of the
citizens and the associations cannot be taken away even ten1porarily for
B reasons which are not known to the individual or the association. The
counter filed by the Government also states what Shri Tulsi has argued
before us, viz., 11 ••••• There are sufficient grounds and materials in the
possession of the Government and some of the reasons have been men-
tioned in the notification itself'. It is stated that the reasons exist in the
C Government file. Some of these reasons, according to the counter, have
been stated in the notification as well. It is further submitted that all facts
and materials have been duly furnished to JEIH. They were furnished with
the statements against them and they have filed their counter affidavit
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, will
D decide the matter, in due course.

In this connection, we may refer to C.B. Gautam v. Union of India
& Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 78, where the case arose out of an order for
compulsory purchase of immovable property under the provisions of Sec-
tion 269-UD of the Income Tax Act. What fell for consideration was the
E .expression "for reasons to be recorded in writing" used in Section 269-UD
·(1). The Court referred to the provisions of Section 269-UD (2) which casis
an obligation on the authority to cause a copy of its order under sub-section
(1) to be served on the transferee. The Court, therefore, held as follows :

F "It is, therefore, inconceivable that the order which is required to
be served by the appropriate authority under sub-section (2) would
be the one which does not contain the reasons for the passing of
the order or is not accompanied by the reasons recorde_d in writing.
It may be permissible to record reasons separatelJ' but the order
would be incomplete order unless either the resons are incor-
G porated thereon or are served separately along with the order on
the affected party. We are of the view, that reasons for the order
-must be· communicated to the affected party."

The present petition was filed on 13th January, 1993. In the docu-
H. ments supplied to the petitioner and appellants before us, there is no
\
MOHD.JAFAR v. U.0.1. [SAWANT,J.] 123

material which makes out a case for immediate ban under the said proviso. A
The material is the same for the ban under Section 3 (1). As stated earlier,
for justification of the immediate ban under the proviso in question,
something distinct and different which calls for the urgent step has to be
in possession of the Central Government and the same has to be communi-
cated to the association. In this connection, it needs emphasis that the need
B
for communication of such reasons is all the more because of the provisions
of Sections 10, 11 and 13 which visit with the penalty for being members
of an unlawful association, for dealing with funds of such association, and
prescribes punishment for the unlawful activities of such persons, respec-
tively.
c
6. We are, therefore, of the view that the Government has failed to
justify the immediate ban imposed on Jamaate-e-Islami Hind under the
proviso to Section 3(3) of the Act. Accordingly the part of the notification,
viz., and directs, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to
11

sub-section (3) of that section, that this notification shall ..... have effect
from the date of its publication in the Official Gazatte'', is bad in law and D
is struck down. We express no opinion on the validity of the rest of the
notification which is the subject matter of adjudication before the Tribunal.

7. The decision of the High Court is set .aside. For the reasons stated
above, the writ petition and the civil appeal are accordingly allowed with
no order as to costs.
E

T.N.A. Petition allowed.