The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected 2002 Mumbai blasts accused Saquib Nachan’s plea challenging the central notifications classifying the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a terrorist organisation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967. The notifications dated February 16, 2015, and June 19, 2018, declared Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and Levant/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Daish/Islamic State in Khorasan Province/ISIS Wilayat Khorasan/Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham-Khorasan, and all its manifestation as ‘terrorist organisation’ under the anti-terror law. Saquib Nachan had contended that it was violative of his Article 25 rights, and that the expressions Caliphate and Jihad have been wrongly read to introduce the ban by equating them with terrorism. Saquib Nachan was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in December 2023 for his alleged role in promoting terrorist activities linked to ISIS. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the matter, saying it would be more appropriate for those aggrieved to seek bail before the appropriate forum rather than contest the notifications. “It seems to us that instead of bringing challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner, or for his son, lies in approaching the appropriate forum and make out a case that the activities undertaken by them do not fall within the offending clauses of UAPA and/or that for any other valid reason, they are entitled to be released on bail,” said the bench. “We have no reason to doubt that the court of competent jurisdiction will earnestly consider such submissions with reference to prayer for bail and/or any other relief that may be claimed by the petitioner or his son in the pending case(s),” the bench added. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, who was appointed amicus curiae in the case, said that according to the petitioner, his son was arrested merely based on a premise, and he too was arrested after he filed the present petition. Saquib Nachan, who was lodged in the Tihar jail, passed away at a private hospital in Delhi on June 28, 2025, following a brain haemorrhage. Gupta contended that while the UAPA provides for a mechanism to declare an organisation as an unlawful association, there is no definition of a terrorist organisation. But Justice Kant said any organisation indulging in activities that amount to a terrorist act will be considered a terrorist organisation. “You don’t need a separate nomenclature for that.” On the argument regarding jihad and caliphate, Justice Bagchi said the caliphate is defined as the Kingdom of Allah in the Quran. But when the notification uses the word, it is in relation to terrorist activity and therefore, it has to be read in the context of terrorist activity.
