Read Time: 06 minutes
Per ED’s complaint, Anis Ahmed held a significant role in managing the finances of the Popular Front of India (PFI), with his primary responsibility being the collection of funds for the organization. In addition to this, he also served as the spokesperson for PFI. The organization deposited the collected funds from various districts into the account of its so-called national committee.
The Delhi High Court, on Monday, allowed the advocates for Anis Ahmed as well as the Union to file a written submission not exceeding 2 pages in Ahmed’s plea challenging the sanction issued against him under UAPA proceedings.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan listed the matter for April 4, 2025, at 4:00 PM.
During the hearing, Ahmed’s advocate contended that the order granting sanction unequivocally mentioned the investigator’s report as the sole document considered. It was emphasized that the absence of additional material rendered the sanction legally unsustainable. The court, seeking clarification, inquired whether the plea was directed against the validity of the sanction itself.
In response, Ahmed’s advocate confirmed that his petition relied on the government’s own documents, which demonstrated the lack of comprehensive evidence before the sanctioning authority. He further argued that under UAPA, the issue of sanction had to be raised at the earliest possible stage. To that effect, he had already moved an application before the trial court, seeking permission to cross-examine the investigating authority before the arguments on charges commenced.
He also informed the court that both petitions—one seeking examination of the investigating authority and another challenging the sanction—were still pending. He maintained that the sanction itself was nullius juris.
The court, upon hearing this assertion, asked whether the petitioner was now directly challenging the validity of the sanction. Ahmed’s counsel reiterated that the sanction was null and void, emphasizing that it lacked legal sanctity due to procedural deficiencies.
The Union’s counsel opposed the petition, arguing that Ahmed’s legal team had filed contradictory applications seeking different reliefs. He accused the petitioner of attempting to delay proceedings by shifting legal strategies. He further pointed out that while the law allowed only nine months to file such a challenge, Ahmed had approached the court after a delay of two years.
The court acknowledged the delay and directed Ahmed’s counsel to provide a satisfactory explanation. In response, Ahmed’s lawyer assured the court that they would clarify the reasons for the late filing. After considering the submissions from both parties, the court directed them to be prepared with their written submissions and notes.
Background:
The case stemmed from information received by the Central Government indicating that members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) were conspiring to commit terrorist acts in various parts of India. E. Abubacker, a member of PFI's National Executive Council (NEC), was named in the FIR. Funds from PFI accounts were allegedly used in terror activities, with Abubacker as an authorized signatory for one of the accounts. The FIR accused Abubacker and others of preparing for terrorist acts, radicalizing youths, and promoting communal disharmony.
Case Title: Anis Ahmed v Union Of India (W.P.(CRL)-448/2025)
Please Login or Register
