The Karnataka High Court has rejected a plea by the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) to unseal its properties in Mangalore, which were sealed by the State government following the ban imposed on the Popular Front of India (PFI) by the Central Government.

The SDPI had filed a petition seeking the reopening of its offices, but the court ruled that the notifications to seal the premises were issued under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and that the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy provided by the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made an observation regarding the notifications to seal the premises. The judge noted that these notifications were issued under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. As a result, the judge stated that the petitioner (Social Democratic Party of India) has an alternative statutory remedy available to them, which is necessary to be pursued in the unique circumstances of the case. The judge emphasized that recording evidence regarding the actions of the State is imperative in this matter.

The SDPI argued that it is a political party with representation throughout India, including in the Dakshina Kannada District, and claimed to be at the forefront of empowering deprived sections of society against divisive forces. However, the State government contended that the activities of the petitioner were directly linked to the banned organization PFI, justifying the sealing of the premises.

In September 2022, the Central Government declared PFI and its associates or affiliates as unlawful associations, and authorized State Governments and Union territories to take action under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Based on this notification, raids were conducted in Mangalore, resulting in the sealing of several premises, including those belonging to the SDPI.

The court observed that the Central Government had directed State Governments to pass appropriate orders under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Section 8(3) and (4) of the Act allows aggrieved persons to approach the District Magistrate within the jurisdiction where the notified place is situated.

The court noted that the State government's objections stated that the sealed offices of the petitioner were being used by the banned organization. Therefore, the court held that evidence is required to prove the petitioner's case under Section 8 of the Act and declined to entertain the petition, while reserving the petitioner's liberty to present their contentions before the District Judge empowered to consider issues under the Act.

Case Title: Social Democratic Party of India And Union of India & Others.