Introduction:

On October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court of India resumed hearing a writ petition originally filed in 2013 by Islamic preacher Zakir Abdul Karim Naik. Naik, currently residing in Malaysia and facing multiple charges in India under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), sought to have several First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against him consolidated. The charges relate to promoting enmity between religious groups under Section 153A of the IPC. Naik is also under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for his speeches and financial transactions.

In this high-profile legal battle, Naik, represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, sought the Supreme Court’s intervention under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, allowing individuals to petition the highest court to enforce their fundamental rights. However, the case took a complex turn when the State of Maharashtra, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, objected to the maintainability of the petition, citing Naik’s status as a fugitive from justice. A bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih presided over the matter.

Zakir Naik’s Arguments:

Zakir Naik’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, argued about the clubbing of multiple FIRs filed against Naik in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Sondhi informed the court that there were a total of 43 cases filed against Naik, out of which six FIRs remained pending—four in Maharashtra and two in Karnataka. Naik’s counsel also pointed out that proceedings in these cases had been stayed since 2013, and the preacher now sought relief to either have these cases quashed or transferred to one jurisdiction to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Sondhi emphasized that the FIRs pertain to similar charges under Section 153A of the IPC and related provisions, making it reasonable to seek their consolidation for an efficient judicial process. He also denied any instructions from Naik regarding the withdrawal of the petition, contrary to the impression raised by the State of Maharashtra.

Naik’s legal team further argued that the petitioner’s rights under Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights, should not be denied, even if Naik has been declared a fugitive.

State of Maharashtra’s Objections:

Representing the State of Maharashtra, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised strong objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. He contended that since Zakir Naik had been declared a fugitive from justice by an Indian court, he could not seek any remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution. Mehta argued that a fugitive from the law cannot maintain a petition in the Supreme Court, as Naik had evaded the legal process by fleeing the country and residing in Malaysia.

Mehta pointed out that a non-bailable warrant was issued against Naik in 2017 by a special NIA court in Mumbai, and despite multiple summons, he had failed to appear before Indian authorities. Given these circumstances, Mehta argued that Naik’s status as a fugitive disqualified him from availing legal remedies in Indian courts, including the current writ petition.

Additionally, the Solicitor General noted procedural defects in Naik’s petition, such as the absence of the petitioner’s signature, which, according to Mehta, rendered the petition defective. He urged the Court to have these defects addressed before the matter proceeded further. Mehta also reiterated that the State of Maharashtra was ready to file a counter affidavit, but that the defects in Naik’s petition needed to be resolved first.

Court’s Observations and Interim Decision:

During the hearing, Justice Abhay Oka, leading the bench, expressed the court’s intent to review the status of the pending cases and whether final reports had been filed. Justice Oka also acknowledged the objections raised by the State regarding the maintainability of the petition but indicated that the court would allow the State to file its counter-affidavit addressing the preliminary objections, including Naik’s fugitive status.

While the Solicitor General urged the Court to seek an affidavit from Zakir Naik regarding his intention to withdraw the petition, Naik’s counsel stated that no such instructions had been received. The bench, however, allowed the State of Maharashtra to raise this issue through its counter affidavit.

In response to the Solicitor General’s procedural objections, Justice Oka clarified that the Court was not waiving any objections raised by the registry concerning defects in the petition. However, he stated that the Court would accept the State’s counter affidavit despite these defects. “Hundreds of cases we hear are in the defective category, and we grant relief also,” Justice Oka remarked.

The bench then scheduled the matter for further hearing next Wednesday, October 23, 2024. In the meantime, it allowed the respondents to file their counter affidavits, raising all objections, including the fugitive status of the petitioner and the maintainability of the petition.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s handling of Zakir Naik’s writ petition revolves around the delicate balance between a petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution and the State’s argument that a fugitive from justice cannot avail such rights. While the Court has not yet made any final decision on the merits of the petition, it has allowed the State of Maharashtra to file a counter affidavit raising preliminary objections, including Naik’s fugitive status. The Court’s interim order to proceed with the case despite procedural defects underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing fundamental rights, even in complex cases involving high-profile fugitives.

The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for both Zakir Naik’s legal standing and the broader question of whether fugitives from justice can maintain petitions in India’s highest court. The next hearing, scheduled for October 23, 2024, will likely provide further clarity on these issues.