Shopian Court Orders Reopening of Seminary Declared Unlawful Under UAPA, Citing Excessive Use of Power

The news

Srinagar and Shopian. A court in Jammu and Kashmir’s Shopian district on Thursday, September 24, ordered the reopening of Darul Uloom Jamia Siraj-ul-Uloom (spelt Siraj-ul-Aloom by The Indian Express), one of the largest seminaries in south Kashmir, about five months after the administration declared it an “unlawful entity” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), India’s principal anti-terror law, The Hindu (via PTI) and the Express report. Passing an interim order — a temporary direction that holds the position until final judgment — on the seminary’s petition, Principal District and Sessions Judge Mehmood Ahmad Chowdhary directed that the institute resume educational activities until the matter is fully adjudicated, under a committee of a district administration representative, an education department representative and a “reputable person” from the district. The main case continues. Advocate S.M. Iqbal, for the institute, said the court restored the school and its assets, including the hostel and the orchard, and that a detailed order was likely on Friday. He said the judge found the government’s material at this prima facie stage — on a first look, before evidence is tested — insufficient to justify keeping the entire institution shut, and that “excessive power had been exercised relative to the allegations made.” About 1,200 students studied there, some 400 as boarders, and the institute said its properties were deteriorating. The ban order had alleged “covert linkages” with the banned Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), “serious legal, administrative and financial irregularities” and “radicalisation”, and called the institute’s objections “misconceived, factually untenable, and devoid of legal merit.” Per the Express, it was the first seminary declared unlawful in J&K, days after the government took over 58 schools “affiliated” to the Falah-e-Aam Trust, which Valley leaders called a “vicious attack on Jammu and Kashmir’s identity and dignity.” The seminary taught religious and modern subjects up to Class 12 and was recognised by the J&K Board of School Education. It was founded in 1998 on six hectares donated by a local saint, Peer Gull Mohammad Sofi; though some members were JeI-affiliated, it was run by a separate Siraj-ul-Uloom Educational Trust. Neither paper names the UAPA provision used. The syllabus link is GS3 on extremism and security in border areas, and GS2 on fundamental rights, judicial review and education.

Static syllabus linkage

1. UAPA lets the Centre ban an association, but only through a tribunal-checked process. Section 2(p) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 defines an unlawful association as one whose object is any unlawful activity, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake it, or whose members undertake it. Under Section 3, the Central Government may declare an association unlawful by notification in the Official Gazette, stating the grounds. Under Section 4, the notification must be referred within thirty days to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal, which under Section 5 consists of one sitting High Court judge, and which must decide within six months whether there is sufficient cause for the declaration. Under Section 6, a confirmed declaration stays in force for five years, a period raised from two years by a 2013 amendment.
2. Places and funds of a banned association can be seized, with a District Judge as the check. Section 7 of UAPA allows the government to prohibit dealings in the funds of an unlawful association, and Section 8(1) allows it to notify any place that in its opinion is used for the purpose of such an association, after which the place can be taken over and its contents listed. Section 42 lets the Centre delegate these powers under Sections 7 and 8 to State governments. Under Section 8(8), any person aggrieved by such a notification may, within thirty days, apply to the Court of the District Judge to establish that the place was not being used for the unlawful association or to have the orders set aside. This is why a district court, not the tribunal, is the natural forum for a dispute over a school’s premises. Separately, Section 25, in the Chapter on forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism, allows an investigating officer, with the approval of the Director General of Police or of the National Investigation Agency, to seize or attach property representing proceeds of terrorism.
3. The Jamaat-e-Islami (J&K) ban is the background to every such action in the Valley. The Union Home Ministry declared Jamaat-e-Islami (Jammu and Kashmir) an unlawful association under Section 3 of UAPA on February 28, 2019, for five years, citing its alleged support to militancy and separatism. The ban was extended in February 2024 for a further five years. The Falah-e-Aam Trust has long run a network of schools in the Valley associated with the Jamaat. Actions against affiliated institutions therefore rest on the logic of the 2019 declaration, but each still needs its own evidence linking that institution to the association.
4. Courts have insisted that UAPA powers be exercised on evidence and reviewed fairly. In Jamaat-e-Islami Hind v. Union of India, decided in December 1994, the Supreme Court held that the tribunal under UAPA must adjudicate objectively on material that can be tested, rather than simply accept the government’s opinion, while allowing some evidence to be kept confidential. The Constitution also protects the interests at stake: Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged six to fourteen, and Article 30 gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Sixteenth Amendment of 1963 added the sovereignty and integrity of India as a ground for reasonable restrictions on the freedoms of speech, assembly and association, and UAPA was enacted in 1967 on that basis. Judicial review of executive action is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Why UPSC loves this

1. GS3 asks how to fight extremism without alienating communities. UPSC has asked about the role of education and development in countering radicalisation and about security challenges in Jammu and Kashmir. This case is a concrete example of the tension: shutting a school may cut an alleged channel of influence but also removes an education for 1,200 children. An answer that shows both sides scores higher than a one-sided one.
2. Prelims regularly tests UAPA’s architecture. Questions have covered which government declares an association unlawful, the tribunal’s composition and the period of a ban, and the 2019 amendment allowing individuals to be designated as terrorists. The distinction between an unlawful association (Chapter II) and a terrorist organisation (Chapter VI and the First Schedule) is a favourite trap.
3. GS2 links security law to judicial review and rights. Questions on the misuse of anti-terror laws, low conviction rates under UAPA and the role of courts in protecting liberty are common in GS2 and essay papers. The Shopian order shows the lowest tier of the judiciary exercising that review, which is a useful counterpoint to arguments that only constitutional courts check executive excess.

Analysis

1. The order is about proportionality, not about innocence. The judge did not find the seminary free of the allegations; he found that the material at this stage did not justify shutting the entire institution. That is a narrow and careful holding. It accepts that the state may have concerns while insisting that the response match them, which is exactly the proportionality test courts apply to any restriction of rights. A supervisory committee with officials on it is the middle path: the state keeps watch, and the students keep their school.
2. Collective closure punishes the many for the alleged conduct of a few. The Express reports that some members were affiliated with the Jamaat but that the school was run by a separate trust and recognised by the state board. If specific teachers or trustees are linked to a banned group, the law allows action against them individually, and the funds provisions allow money to be frozen. Closing the whole institution makes 1,200 students and 400 boarders bear the cost of adults’ alleged conduct. The counter-view is that in the Valley, institutional networks have been used to spread radical ideas, and partial action may leave the structure intact; but that argues for supervision, which the court has ordered, not for closure.
3. Closure may produce the alienation it seeks to prevent. A seminary that taught both religious and modern subjects to Class 12 is exactly the kind of institution that can keep young people inside the mainstream. Shutting it on allegations, days after taking over 58 Falah-e-Aam Trust schools, allowed Valley leaders to describe the action as an attack on identity and dignity. Counter-radicalisation depends on trust, and trust is lost when entire communities feel targeted. A supervised reopening gives the administration a chance to show it is fighting a specific threat, not a faith or a region.
4. The lowest court doing its job strengthens the law, not weakens it. UAPA is often criticised as a law where process becomes punishment, with bail hard to get and trials slow. A district court restoring a school within five months, on a limited record, shows that the Act’s internal checks can work. That matters for the law’s legitimacy: a law seen as unreviewable breeds resentment and false cases, while one with working checks keeps public support for genuine prosecutions. The administration’s better response is to strengthen its evidence for the final hearing rather than treat the order as an obstacle.
5. The lesson for administrators is to keep the ban order specific. The ban order called the institute’s objections “misconceived” and “devoid of legal merit”, but the court found its own material thin at the prima facie stage. Orders under security laws that rely on broad words such as “radicalisation” without specific, testable facts are vulnerable in any court. A good order names the conduct, the persons and the link to the banned group, and considers lesser measures before closure. Precision is not a concession to the accused; it is what makes the order survive.

Administrator's brainstorm