Shared contact number, ‘allegiance oath’: Why Madras High Court refused to unseal PFI-linked properties in Tamil Nadu

The order added that on perusal of the pamphlets of the petitioners and PFI, it is revealed that both the pamphlets have the same contact number.

Background

• The dispute originated from an order passed by the district collector of Theni in Tamil Nadu on September 30, 2022, which directed the attachment and sealing of the petitioners’ premises at Muthuthevanpatti.
• This action followed a central government notification dated September 27, 2022, which declared the PFI and its affiliates as “unlawful associations” for a period of five years under the UAPA.
• The petitioners initially challenged this attachment before the trial court, which dismissed their petition in February 2025.
• They subsequently moved the high court seeking a certiorarified mandamus to de-seal the property.

Findings

• The statements revealed that PFI office-bearers initially spoke about the oppression of Muslims in Palestine and other parts of the world.
• They were made to believe that Muslims were under constant attack and persecution by Hindu organisations, and were shown how Hindu outfits had destroyed the Babri Masjid, etc.
• It also revealed that during the beginners’ camp, at the end of which they took baiyat (oath of allegiance), they all stood together, shook hands with each other, and swore in the name of God that they would never leave the PFI nor betray it.
• It is revealed that PFI, through the institution of one of the petitioners in Theni district, deputed its cadres to conduct dawa work in Thanjavur district at several places. Dawah refers to the practice of inviting people of all faiths to understand and adopt Islam’s message.
• They were also involved in a murder case.
• The notification issued by the Government of India covers the petitioners as an unlawful association.
• After the said declaration, the Centre delegated powers to the state government, which, in turn, delegated those powers to the DM to act under Section 8 (power to notify places used for the purpose of an unlawful association) of the UAPA.
• The order passed under Section 8 and under Section 25 of the UAPA are completely distinct, and as such, respondents 3 and 4 have the jurisdiction and power to pass orders under both sections.
• It is clear that Section 8 deals with the prohibition of the premises by the unlawful association, whereas Section 25 deals with the forfeiture of the proceeds of the premises which are intended to be used for terrorism.
• The order passed under Section 25 must be informed to the designated authorities within 48 hours, and it must be confirmed within 60 days.