Maharashtra govt asks SC to reject Zakir Naik’s plea, says he is a ‘fugitive’ | Latest News India

NEW DELHI: The Maharashtra government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by controversial television evangelist Zakir Naik in 2013 for slapping several first information reports (FIRs) lodged against him in Maharashtra, Karnataka and other states for alleged hate speech , arguing that Naik is a “fugitive” and does not deserve leniency from India’s highest court.

Representing the Maharashtra government, Attorney General Tushar Mehta raised an objection regarding the maintenance of Naik’s petition, pointing out that even the Supreme Court record flagged a procedural defect – that Naik’s signature is missing from his petition.

“The question is whether Naik, who has been declared a fugitive, can file a petition under Article 32 (for enforcement of fundamental rights) for such relief. A person who is declared a fugitive by the court, how can he maintain an Article 32 petition?” Mehta asked before a bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka.

The bench, which also included Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, responded that the state was free to raise all its preliminary objections in the affidavit to be filed, but the SG pointed out that the procedural lapses in Naik’s petition were flagged by the Supreme Registrar of the court itself.

“The defect was highlighted by the registry office in its registry report. Let him come here and sign the petition first. After all, he is a fugitive… the registry office raised this objection. Can your Lordships waive this objection? Mehta asked.

Contrary to Mehta’s claims, Naik’s lawyer S Hariharan said that no court, national or international, has declared Naik a fugitive. “Where is a court order declaring my client a fugitive? There is no such order… Regarding case clubbing, initially there were around 50 cases, which have now decreased to four. If this court so desires and allows it, we can remove it from this court and move the higher jurisdictional court,” Hariharan added. However, senior counsel Aditya Sondhi, also representing Naik, sought time to decide on the future course of action.

The bench then said that the state of Maharashtra should file its affidavit raising all the objections it has, adding, “There are hundreds of cases that we have heard, which fall in the defective category. We grant relief too… We are not waiving any objection. We are saying that since your counter is ready, you file it. The registry will accept it.”

He scheduled the matter for further hearing on October 26.

Naik faces numerous legal challenges in India, including hate speech cases and for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. He is also wanted in India on charges of money laundering and uttering hate speeches that allegedly promote enmity and hatred between religious communities.

Naik fled India in 2016, shortly after terrorists responsible for an attack on a cafe in Dhaka, Bangladesh, claimed they were inspired by him. Following this, the Indian government banned Naik and his organization, the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), for five years in November 2016. He currently resides in Malaysia, where he has been granted permanent residency. He initially moved to Saudi Arabia before securing residency in Malaysia under the administration of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. His continued presence in Malaysia has also strained diplomatic relations between India and Malaysia, as India has repeatedly requested Naik’s extradition to face charges of money laundering and inciting extremism. He recently traveled to Pakistan.

In March 2022, a court under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act upheld the Indian government’s 2021 decision to declare the Islamic Research Foundation an illegal association. According to the court, there were sufficient reasons to support the government’s decision. The Center argued that the IRF, along with its president and members, engaged in activities that were inflammatory and posed a threat to the secular fabric of India. The government notification emphasized that the divisive ideology promoted by the IRF could incite discontent against the country and disrupt harmony between different religious communities.