NEW DELHI: A Delhi High Court tribunal has confirmed the central government's ban on two Jammu and Kashmir organizations, including the Awami Action Committee (AAC) headed by prominent religious leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, ruling that there was "ample justification" to declare them unlawful associations under India's anti-terrorism legislation.
Justice Sachin Datta, heading the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal, issued the order on September 3, 2025, upholding the Central Government's March 11, 2025, notification that banned the AAC and the Jammu and Kashmir Ittihadul Muslimeen (JKIM) led by Shia leader Masroor Abbas Ansari.
The tribunal concluded that based on "material and evidence placed before them, there is ample justification to declare the two groups as unlawful associations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967."
The Union Home Ministry had originally banned the organizations citing their involvement in unlawful activities prejudicial to India's integrity, sovereignty and security, mobilizing funds for separatist, secessionist and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, promoting secession of J&K from India through anti-national and subversive activities, and destabilizing law and order while encouraging use of arms to separate J&K from India.
Evidence Against AAC
The tribunal's 158-page judgment detailed extensive evidence against the AAC, including ‘criminal cases’, ‘NIA investigation’, social media propaganda and intelligence reports.
The government presented evidence from 11 FIRs registered against Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and other AAC members between 2008-2016 for allegedly delivering anti-national speeches, raising slogans like "Hum Kya Chahte Azadi" (What do we want? Freedom) and "Kashmir Banega Pakistan" (Kashmir will become Pakistan), stone-pelting on security forces, and damaging public property.
A major component was NIA Case RC-10/2017 which revealed AAC spokesperson Aftab Ahmad Shah's involvement with terrorist organizations, his possession of photographs with designated terrorist Syed Salahuddin, recovery of Lashkar-e-Taiba letterheads from his residence, and evidence of funding from Pakistan for secessionist activities.
The tribunal examined video evidence from AAC's social media channels and claimed that Mirwaiz Umar Farooq advocated for Kashmir's "right to self-determination," glorifying slain terrorists as "martyrs," calling for strikes and protests against Indian forces, and spreading "disaffection against India."
Confidential intelligence reports submitted in sealed cover detailed AAC's collaboration with anti-India elements in Pakistan, efforts to foster separation of J&K from India, activities to subvert India's sovereignty, and propaganda to inflame local sentiments and promote violence.
AAC's Defense
The organization filed a limited reply through General Secretary Ghulam Nabi Zaki, stating they would not formally contest the ban as it was "politically motivated." Their defense highlighted the institution's 17th-century religious heritage, its educational and social reform work, humanitarian activities during natural disasters, and advocacy for dialogue and peaceful resolution.
In its reply to the government's charges, the Awami Action Committee mounted a defense centered on its historical role as a religious and social reform institution dating back to the 17th century. The organization emphasized its legacy of promoting education, particularly for girls, and its extensive humanitarian work including disaster relief efforts during the 2014 floods when hundreds of volunteers rescued thousands of people and participated in home reconstruction through their 'Akh Akis' (for one another) initiative.
The AAC stated that it advocates dialogue and peaceful resolution, citing meetings between Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and senior Indian leaders including former Prime Ministers Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh as evidence of their commitment to finding solutions through discourse rather than violence.
Regarding the NIA case involving their media advisor Aftab Ahmad Shah, they argued that individuals' personal involvements should not be attributed to the organization as a whole. More significantly, they dismissed the multiple FIRs registered against their leadership between 2008-2011 as merely involving "delivery of speeches and shouting slogans," contending these could not form the basis for declaring the organization unlawful.
The AAC characterized these cases as "baseless, manipulated, concocted and frivolous," pointing to the fact that most had not progressed beyond registration stage over fifteen years.
However, the tribunal noted the organisation failed to specifically deny key allegations or provide evidence contradicting the government's case.
The tribunal applied the standard established in the Supreme Court's Jamaat-e-Islami Hind case, requiring "objective determination" based on material evidence. The judgment emphasized that under Section 2(o) of UAPA, "unlawful activity" includes any action that supports secession of Indian territory, disrupts sovereignty and territorial integrity, or causes disaffection against India.
The judgment referenced the constitutional amendments made in 1963 specifically to address secessionist movements, noting that the UAPA was enacted "to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India."
The tribunal observed that sovereignty and territorial integrity of India are "basic features" of the Constitution, citing the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case.
The ban means AAC is now classified as an unlawful association, making membership punishable by up to two years imprisonment under UAPA. The organization had been a founding member of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference since 1993.
The ruling comes amid ongoing tensions in Jammu and Kashmir, with the tribunal noting the region's history of violence and the challenges faced by security forces in maintaining law and order.
Have you liked the news article?