Tribunal sets riders for Zakir’s plea against ban on IRF

NEW DELHI: Fugitive evengealist

Zakir Abdul Karim Naik

, founder of Islamic Research Foundation, must get his signature verified before Indian Embassy in Malaysia before filing vakalatnama before the

Tribunal

constituted under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which is adjudicating validity of the Centre's notification declaring IRF an unlawful organisation under UAPA.

The Tribunal headed by Delhi High Court Chief Justice D N Patel accepted the objections of solicitor general Tushar

Mehta

, on behalf of the Centre, that the vakalatnama filed by Naik was no in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and that no one knows whether absconding accused Naik's signature on the vakalatnama was genuine. The SG said that Naik is an absconding accused and that his vakalatnama has been filed without proper verification as has been envisaged by the Supreme Court in its 2006 judgment in Uday Shankar Tiyar case.

Mehta's contentions remained unrebutted as IRF's counsel S Hari Haran conceded before the Tribunal that Naik's vakalatnama had not been filed through the Indian Embassy and that he was not in a position to verify the signatures of Naik. The vakalatnama was signed by Naik and Naseer Riyasat Khan, both describing themselves as trustees of IRF.

The Tribunal in its order said, "In view of this fact, we hereby direct Zakir Abdul Karim Naik to file his vakalatnama in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Tiyar case. His vakalatnama (will) be filed through Indian Embassy in Malaysia ater proper verification of his signatures." It also asked IRF to file a detailed reply by February 9, while posting the hearing for February 10. It asked the Union government file list of witnesses and the examination chief before the next date of hearing.

In the Tiyar case, the SC had expressed concern over the manner in which defective Vakalatnamas are routinely filed in courts. "Vakalatnama, a species of Power of Attorney, is an important document, which enables and authorizes the pleader appearing for a litigant to do several acts as an Agent, which are binding on the litigant who is the principal."

The SC had said, "It is a document which creates the special relationship between the lawyer and the client. It regulates and governs the extent of delegation of authority to the pleader and the terms and conditions governing such delegation. It should, therefore, be properly filled/attested/accepted with care and caution. Obtaining the signature of the litigant on blank Vakalatnama and filling them subsequently should be avoided."

The Centre had constituted a seven member lawyers' team led by the solicitor general to defend its November 15, 2021 notification imposing a fresh five year ban under UAPA on IRF before the UAPA Tribunal. The other counsel are - Sachin Datta, Amit Mahajan, Rajat Nair, Kanu Agrawal, Jay Prakash and Dhruv Pandey. IRF was termed as an "unlawful association" under UAPA on November 17, 2016 for a period of five years. The ban on IRF was extended for five more years by a fresh notification issued on November 15.

MHA in its notification had said that if the activities of the "unlawful association" were not curbed, it would continue its subversive activities and reorganize its absconding activists to create communal disharmony, propagate anti-national sentiments and support militancy.

The Central government was of the opinion that the IRF and its members, particularly, its founder and president Zakir Naik, has been encouraging and aiding its followers to promote or attempt to promote, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities and groups which are prejudicial to the integrity and security of the country. It referred to his statements and speeches saying that they were objectionable and subversive, and added that Naik, through such speeches and statements, was inspiring youths of a particular religion in India and abroad, to commit terrorist acts. It has to produce evidence before the Tribunal to justify the fresh notification.