07-29-2008, 06:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Unprepared Govt makes light of SIMI ban extension </b>
pioneer.com
Parvaiz Sultan | New Delhi
<b>If one needed proof that the Centre was soft-pedalling the issue of terrorism, it was amply available on Monday before the Unlawful Activities Prevention Tribunal (UAPT). The Government came unprepared to seek continuation of the ban on the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). When UAPT, headed by Justice Geeta Mittal, wanted to know whether SIMI had caused any riots after February 2006, the Centre had no reply. </b>
"<b>It is the fundamental right of a person...he must know that by which action of his, such strong action has been taken against him. You are saying that SIMI was involved in communal riots, bomb blasts and destructive activities. Tell me, which riots after February 2006 were engineered by SIMI and place the material before me," Justice Mittal said. "You can't presume. </b>You have registered 106 fresh cases. Some set in Bhopal, some in Jaipur, others in Malegaon and Ghatkopar, but there's no mention of the FIR numbers. What is the requirement of law? What is to be tested? It has serious impact", the tribunal grilled Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India AK Pathak while expressing displeasure about the Ministry of Home Affairs' "casual approach".
Justice Mittal also said that if the Centre was claiming SIMI's involvement in these activities, the onus was on the Government to place the proof on record. Meanwhile, the banned outfit's counsel Jawahar Raja submitted, "The notification of February 2008 reads: <b>'The Central Government is of opinion that SIMI continues to indulge in activities for which it was banned earlier and the activists of SIMI are still indulging in communal and anti-social activities. The activities of SIMI are detrimental to the peace, integrity and maintenance of the secular fabric of Indian society and that it is an unlawful association'. But no ground for the notification and no reason for the immediate ban has been spelt out."</b>
Pointing to the "casual approach" of the Centre, Raja said the notification was signed a month after its publication though it should have been done earlier. The organisation was banned in 2001 for its alleged involvement in unlawful activities.<b> "The ban on SIMI has been extended by the Centre on the same ground. There's no fresh material," Raja contended. Addressing the ASG, Justice Mittal said, "To rely on your previous notification and claim that SIMI is still involved in such activities, you will have to connect the original crime." </b>
<b>The UAPT was hearing the Government's appeal to extend the ban on SIMI. The ASG, contending on behalf of the Union Government, justified the ban and sought another two-year extension on it.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pioneer.com
Parvaiz Sultan | New Delhi
<b>If one needed proof that the Centre was soft-pedalling the issue of terrorism, it was amply available on Monday before the Unlawful Activities Prevention Tribunal (UAPT). The Government came unprepared to seek continuation of the ban on the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). When UAPT, headed by Justice Geeta Mittal, wanted to know whether SIMI had caused any riots after February 2006, the Centre had no reply. </b>
"<b>It is the fundamental right of a person...he must know that by which action of his, such strong action has been taken against him. You are saying that SIMI was involved in communal riots, bomb blasts and destructive activities. Tell me, which riots after February 2006 were engineered by SIMI and place the material before me," Justice Mittal said. "You can't presume. </b>You have registered 106 fresh cases. Some set in Bhopal, some in Jaipur, others in Malegaon and Ghatkopar, but there's no mention of the FIR numbers. What is the requirement of law? What is to be tested? It has serious impact", the tribunal grilled Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of India AK Pathak while expressing displeasure about the Ministry of Home Affairs' "casual approach".
Justice Mittal also said that if the Centre was claiming SIMI's involvement in these activities, the onus was on the Government to place the proof on record. Meanwhile, the banned outfit's counsel Jawahar Raja submitted, "The notification of February 2008 reads: <b>'The Central Government is of opinion that SIMI continues to indulge in activities for which it was banned earlier and the activists of SIMI are still indulging in communal and anti-social activities. The activities of SIMI are detrimental to the peace, integrity and maintenance of the secular fabric of Indian society and that it is an unlawful association'. But no ground for the notification and no reason for the immediate ban has been spelt out."</b>
Pointing to the "casual approach" of the Centre, Raja said the notification was signed a month after its publication though it should have been done earlier. The organisation was banned in 2001 for its alleged involvement in unlawful activities.<b> "The ban on SIMI has been extended by the Centre on the same ground. There's no fresh material," Raja contended. Addressing the ASG, Justice Mittal said, "To rely on your previous notification and claim that SIMI is still involved in such activities, you will have to connect the original crime." </b>
<b>The UAPT was hearing the Government's appeal to extend the ban on SIMI. The ASG, contending on behalf of the Union Government, justified the ban and sought another two-year extension on it.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->