Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by three alleged activists of the Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the sanction granted for their prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA(P) Act), 1967.
The appellants were arrested in 2022 by Nizamabad police on charges of trying to create religious animosity and training youngsters in the use of lethal weapons. According to the police, one of the accused, Abdul Qader, was hired by the organisation to train PFI recruits in karate, kung fu, and the use of weapons. The case was later transferred to the NIA.
The accused approached the High Court challenging the order of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for NIA Cases, Hyderabad, dated June 18, 2025, which had rejected their plea to summon sanction records and verify their validity.
The appellants contended that the prosecution sanction dated December 28, 2022, was mechanical, lacked application of mind, and failed to disclose the basis for approval under Sections 18, 18(A), and 18(B) of the UA(P) Act. They argued that they were falsely implicated, that the Nizamabad police had registered a suo motu FIR without due process, and that the sanctioning authority passed a bald order that prejudiced their defence. They further submitted that the trial court, being the first forum, should have examined the sanction at the pre-trial stage.
The NIA opposed the petition, arguing that Section 45 of the UA(P) Act contains no provision for summoning records or witnesses before framing charges. It maintained that the competent authority had considered the investigation report, supporting documents, and statements before granting sanction, and that its validity could only be tested during trial. The agency also pointed out that earlier writ petitions and appeals by the accused on similar grounds had already been dismissed.
The High Court observed that Section 45(2) of the UA(P) Act requires sanction only after an independent review of investigation materials, and the record showed that such a procedure had been followed. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fuleshwar Gope, it held that the authority need not record detailed reasons. Concluding that the validity of the sanction cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges, the Court upheld the Special Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
