State seeks seventh ban on SIMI with mostly stale evidence

Jyoti Punwani

Outfit’s ban must be renewed by a tribunal every 2 years based on new evidence that it continues to exist and carry out unlawful activities; but 4 of 7 ban notifications since 2001 have been more or less identical.

Hearings on the seventh ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) began before the Justice Suresh Kait tribunal yesterday.

The first hearings on evidence presented by the government will be held from April 23 to 25 in Trivandrum. There, evidence related to cases in 16 states and union territories, including Maharashtra, will be presented. The tribunal is expected to travel to all these places so that members of the public can appear before it. It will submit its report by July 31.

SIMI was first banned in September 2001. The ban has since been upheld every two years by tribunals, except once in 2008, when the Justice Geeta Mittal tribunal set it aside. However, the very next day, the government got a stay against her verdict from the Supreme Court.

The ban on SIMI has been challenged in the Supreme Court every time it's been upheld by the tribunals. But no hearing has been held on these petitions so far.

This time too, the ban was challenged by two erstwhile SIMI members after it was upheld in February.

“We want to get the ban removed,” says Humam Siddiqui, one of the two petitioners. “The police have been arresting Muslim boys alleging they are members of SIMI, a banned organisation, or IM, which they say has been created by SIMI. Let the Supreme Court decide one way or the other. The police should not be able to use SIMI as an excuse to pick up innocent boys.”

Siddiqui and Misbah ul-Islam are appearing in front of the tribunal on behalf of SIMI. Siddiqui joined SIMI while he was in s chool, and became the president of its UP unit. He now practises law in Delhi. Misbah was an ordinary member; he now runs a school in Murshidabad.

Interestingly, SIMI has been banned under two sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA. It is listed as a banned organisation under the first schedule of the UAPA, along with organisations such as Hizbul Mujahidden. This ban is indefinite, and remains in force until the government revokes it.

SIMI is also banned under Section 3 of the UAPA, which bans an organisation for two years at a time. The ban can be renewed, provided the government gives reasons to show that the organisation continues to exist and carry out unlawful activities. However, last year, the Government of India amended the act to extend the ban period to five years, ostensibly to reduce the cost of enforcing the ban.

“No other organisation’s ban has been challenged every time, the way ours has,” says Siddiqui. “Before it was banned, SIMI's activities were open. We brought out a magazine, and had a list of members and a constitution. Today, SIMI’s then president, Dr Shahid Badr, practises medicine in Azamgarh, and I am a lawyer. Our activities are open to scrutiny.”

Justice Mittal set aside the ban on SIMI because she found the notification banning it in 2008 identical to the one banning it in 2006. No new reasons were given for extending the ban. However, a study of the notifications issued by the government every two years show that those issued before 2008 -- in 2001, 2003 and 2006 -- were also identical.

Going through the evidence provided by the government over the years, it appears that old cases have been relied on most of the time. Only in 2012 were 30 new cases brought as evidence.

Most of the cases cited by the government this time have nothing to do with terrorist acts. They include the Azad Maidan rioting case in Mumbai, in which, the government alleges, one accused was a SIMI member. Two other cases relate to attempted or successful jail breaks from Sabarmati jail and Khandwa jail. A rioting case in Hyderabad has also been included.

Orders of successive tribunals show that the government has also been producing confessional statements of accused made in police custody as evidence of unlawful activity by alleged SIMI members.

Advocate Ashok Agrwaal, who is representing SIMI and did so in the last two tribunals, objected to this. But the Justice V K Shali tribunal, which upheld the previous ban (in 2012), ruled that a tribunal is only an inquiry, and does not require that things be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Justice Shaili said, such confessional statements can be used as evidence. Of course, the last word on the legality of this decision lies with the Supreme Court.