Saturday, Apr 27, 2024 | Last Update : 05:21 AM IST
Bombay HC quashes Naik’s petition seeking to set aside MEA order
A FIR under section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by controversial televangelist Dr Zakir Naik, seeking to quash and set aside a ministry of external affairs (MEA) order revoking his passport and demanding status on the cases registered against him by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Enforcement Directorate .
The division bench of Justice R.M. Savant and Justice Revati Mohite-Dere hearing the petition, said, “The petitioner has not shown any interest in joining the investigation. Considering this, the aforesaid relief cannot be granted in our writ jurisdiction.” As far as Dr Naik’s prayer challenging the MEA’s action to revoke his passport went, Justice Savant said that the petitioner should file an independent petition.
Additional solicitor general on behalf of the MEA, ED counsel Hiten Venegaonkar, and NIA lawyer A.S. Pai requested the court to dismiss Dr Naik’s petition as he had not joined the investigation.
Advocate Pai also informed the court that a proclamation had been issued in Dr Naik’s name and Malaysian authorities were conducting extradition proceedings.
A FIR under section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.) of the IPC and sections 10, 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) has been registered against Dr Naik where under section 18, he can be served life imprisonment.
While deciding Dr Naik’s petition, the bench also took into consideration the fact that the petition had been affirmed in Malaysia and the petitioner was not ready to give a statement that he would join the investigation.
When Dr Naik’s counsel Jayprakash Dhanda told the court that he wanted his passport to be maintained as even if he came to India on documents provided by central agencies, there would be no resources to go back. However, the bench did not consider this argument and said that in the absence of any statement from the petitioner that he was ready to join the probe, the court could not consider his prayer.
