The Delhi high Court on Tuesday said that the step to ban Zakir’s foundation is taken keeping in mind the safety and integrity of the country and that the plea of the foundation wasn’t strong enough. The court also said the order of the government was “not arbitrary and illegal”.
Source : s3.india
They said there are possible chances that the youth would be manipulated to join the terror group. The government has produced material before it to back its decision to immediately impose the ban on the organisation and court had reserved the verdict on February 1 on IRF’s plea.
The court was not left behind as it also produced the documents for the same in response to which IRF cross questioned the notification of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which opposed the ban in the organisation.
Source : ibnlive
Supporting the situation, Justice Sachdeva said that the proper reasons were provided to the organisation for the ban and it’s not a sudden decision. Also, the court doesn’t want the tribunal to be manipulated by any judgment. The IRF plead saying no sufficient and material reasons were given to them and that’s it’s wrong and sudden.
The court said that such a decision was necessary to avoid the future problems for India as terror groups can be formed which would be no less than the ISIS and it would threaten the peace at international level.
Source : dnaindia
Well, the statement left the IRF in agitation and they questioned the morality of government because if that was the cause then why any action were not taken before and also they said government can’t just ban any organisation for their personal interest.
The center said that some of the statements of the President, Naik are controversial and mean to harm the cultural ethics and discard the harmony. If that’s not enough sic members of IMF are already under supervision of Mumbai Police In charge of FIR. Some arrested people claimed that they got manipulates with the speeches of Naik.
Though, IRF said that the time and date of speeches are not specified in notification. It had said that it was limiting its plea to the immediate ban and not raising the issue of freezing of its accounts under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.