Skip to main content

Operation All Out? Ban on Jamaat-e-Islami in J&K part of "ongoing repression": PUDR

Counterview Desk
The People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), a civil liberties and democratic rights organization based in Delhi, believes that there aren’t sufficient grounds for banning Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), insisting, the ban has been instituted as part of the “ongoing repression” in the Kashmir Valley. Seeking revocation of the ban, PUDR says, the ban suggests the “cavalier attitude” of the Government of India, which has “ignored” provisions of law and Supreme Court judgments.

Text of the statement:

PUDR draws attention to the illegality behind the decision of the Central Government-ruled Jammu and Kashmir to ban Jamaat-e-Islami of Jammu and Kashmir on February 28, 2019. While attention has been focussed on the escalation and de-escalation of tension between India-Pakistan, the Central Government has intensified repression in the state. The J&K administration has picked up hundreds of persons and booked them under preventive detention laws. Thus far, reports suggest over 300 persons have been detained.
The ban on Jamaat-e-Islami is part of this ongoing repression. The Central Government has invoked the ban by simply issuing a gazette notification, which, as it turns out, is illegal. Drawing upon the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the notification states that the JeI is an “unlawful organisation” and the ban has been invoked with “immediate effect” (S 3(3) UAPA).
The ‘immediate effect’ clause is meant to override the time lag involved in forming a Tribunal and in adjudicating the Government’s decision (S 4(4)). However, for such a decision to be implemented, the Government must provide ‘additional grounds’ as mandated in the Supreme Court judgment of 1994, Mohammad Jafar v Union of India.
The UAPA, under which the JeI has been banned, stresses on the primacy of “grounds”: “Every such notification shall specify the grounds on which it is issued” (S.3(2)). Equally, the Tribunal, when formed, must be furnished with “all the facts on which the grounds are specified in the said notification are based” (Rule 5(ii) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1968).
‘Grounds’ are not ‘opinions’ or subsidiary evidence; they comprise facts which are meant to substantiate the notification. Grounds, as pointed out in another Supreme Court decision in the context of preventive detention, Vakil Singh vs. State of J&K (1974), “must contain the pith and substance of primary facts but not subsidiary facts or evidential details.”
Therefore, without specifying ‘grounds’, the February 28 notification banning the JeI ceases to be lawful and the “immediate effect” clause loses credibility. Worse, the notification is an illegal order which in contempt of the apex court judgment of 1994.
The cavalier attitude of the Central Government, in ignoring the provisions of the law, and in dismissing the apex court’s judgements, is a mark of arrogance. Perhaps, this arrogance is in line with the reasoning that since J&K is a “Disturbed” area and military suppression has been going on for three decades, there is no need to follow the Government’s own laid-down law.
Since the Government has illegally invoked the “immediate effect” clause, JeI members, sympathisers, supporters as well as their kith and kin automatically become liable to arrest and criminally prosecuted for their membership of, or support for, a banned organisation.
Further, any form of legitimate protest on the ban can be treated as an instance of anti-nationalism. This is exactly what happened when the Governor of J&K, Satya Pal Malik, condemned the former People’s Democratic Party Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti’s protest on the JeI ban as an ‘anti-national’ act!
Remarkably, JeI was banned for a few years between 1990-95. In 1997, it severed its ties with the militant organisation Hizbul Mujahideen and went so far as to snap ties even with one of its own longstanding members, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, when he formed Tehreek-i-Hurriyat in 2004. JeI then declared that it was keen on performing ideological and social work.
Against this history, the February 28 notification has authorized a crackdown on JeI members and has led to the sealing and seizure of assets of members. The crackdown has a much wider impact, as the JeI runs schools which employ 10,000 teachers and teach as many as 100,000 students, who face a grim future for no fault of theirs.
The JeI ban and simultaneous arrests under preventive detention provisions are part and parcel of J&K’s history as a “Disturbed Area” in which legal impunity has operated for three decades. In a scenario where all forms of expression and activities by Kashmiris remain severely curbed and military suppression under “Operation All Out” continues, this ban furthers repression by turning legitimate activities into criminal ones and by coercing and silencing the resistance of the Kashmiris.
PUDR is concerned about the intensification of repression on Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pulwama February 14 suicide bombing and the February 26-27 Indo-Pak escalation and threats of military confrontation. PUDR condemns the ban and mass arrests and appeals to all democratic minded people to take note of the worsening situation in Kashmir which is in dire need of political healing, not further repression.

Comments

TRENDING

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra  When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative   The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor*  This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative   Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

From jobless to ‘job-loss’ growth: Experts critique gig economy and fintech risks

By A Representative   Leading economists and social activists gathered in the capital on Friday to launch the third edition of the State of Finance in India Report 2024-25 , issuing a stark warning that the rapid digitalization of the Indian economy is eroding welfare systems and entrenching "digital dystopia."