Delhi High Court Admits PFI Plea Against UAPA Ban
Court Issues Notice to Centre, Hearing in January 2026
The Delhi High Court on October 13, 2025, ruled that the Popular Front of India (PFI)’s plea challenging the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal order upholding the five-year ban on the organisation is maintainable.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued a notice to the Central Government and listed the matter for further hearing on January 20, 2026.
Background: Tribunal Upheld Ban on PFI
The PFI had approached the court against the March 21, 2024 order of the UAPA Tribunal, which confirmed the September 2022 government notification declaring PFI and its affiliates as “unlawful associations.”
The government had alleged that the organisation was engaged in activities prejudicial to India’s sovereignty, integrity, and security.
This ban followed nationwide raids by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which accused PFI of terror financing, radicalisation, and attempts to destabilise public order.
Centre’s Objection and Court’s Response
The Central Government, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction since the UAPA Tribunal was presided over by a sitting Delhi High Court judge. The government contended that the only appeal route lay before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
However, the Delhi High Court rejected this contention. The bench held that Articles 226 and 227 grant the High Court the power to review decisions of tribunals exercising judicial functions.
The judges observed that access to justice is a fundamental right, and writ jurisdiction cannot be curtailed even in cases involving specialised tribunals.
Judiciary Balances Security and Rights
The court’s order allows a comprehensive judicial review of the legal and factual basis of the government’s decision to ban the PFI.
By admitting the plea, the bench signalled the judiciary’s commitment to balancing anti-terrorism measures with the fundamental rights of citizens to seek legal recourse.
The Centre now has six weeks to file its counter affidavit, while the PFI has been granted two weeks for its rejoinderbefore the next hearing.
PFI: A Controversial Organisation
Founded in 2006 in Kerala, the Popular Front of India emerged as a successor to the National Development Front (NDF), formed in 1993. Initially, the PFI claimed to work for minority rights, education, and social empowerment among marginalised Muslim communities.
Over time, the organisation expanded its network across Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra, operating through affiliates engaged in student activism, women’s rights, and labour movements.
However, the PFI has faced consistent allegations of extremist links, radicalisation, and terror financing. Several of its members have been investigated or arrested under anti-terror laws.
In September 2022, the Central Government imposed a five-year nationwide ban on the PFI under the UAPA, citing threats to national security and public order.
A Debate Between Security and Civil Liberties
The PFI ban continues to ignite debate between those prioritising national security and those warning against curbing civil liberties.
Critics argue that the UAPA’s broad powers can lead to misuse, while supporters emphasise its necessity to combat terror networks and radical outfits.
By hearing the PFI’s plea, the Delhi High Court has opened the door for a closer legal examination of how India’s anti-terror laws interact with constitutional rights.
What Lies Ahead
The next phase of the proceedings, scheduled for January 2026, will test the legitimacy and fairness of the PFI ban. The case is expected to shed light on whether the government’s evidence justifies its drastic action under the UAPA.
As the nation watches closely, the Delhi High Court’s intervention reaffirms that even in matters of national security, judicial oversight remains essential to ensure that justice and the rule of law prevail.
