The Delhi High Court has affirmed that appeals against special judge decisions regarding property attachment under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) can be pursued in the High Court. This decision was made in the case of Aquil Ahmed v National Investigation Agency Through the Chief Investigating Officer.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) preliminary objection, which argued against the maintainability of a second appeal on property attachment orders. The NIA contended that per Section 25(6) of the UAPA, only a single appeal to the special court is permissible and that Section 28 of the UAPA provides for appeals to the High Court only in the context of eventual forfeiture orders under Section 26.
However, the Court clarified that actions under Section 26, which involve forfeiture, are separate from property attachment proceedings and necessitate a distinct show-cause notice under Section 27. The Court emphasized, “Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA. A separate show-cause notice is required under Section 27, and an order of forfeiture is passed under Section 26 after hearing the concerned party.” Thus, the appeals address different procedural stages which are independently final.
The NIA also argued that Section 21 of the NIA Act, which allows appeals against special court orders to the High Court, does not apply to property attachment orders under the UAPA, as it would constitute a second appeal. Furthermore, they asserted that orders under Section 25(6) are interlocutory and therefore not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Nevertheless, the High Court concluded that orders under Section 25(6) are final as they decisively resolve issues related to seizure or attachment. The Court noted, “As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the potential for conflicting opinions by the High Court if an appeal is held maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act against an order under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, this does not convince us.”
Consequently, the Court upheld the appeal filed by Aquil Ahmed under Section 28 of the UAPA in conjunction with Section 21 of the NIA Act as maintainable. Ahmed was contesting a special judge’s decision that supported a June 2023 order from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) confirming the attachment of property located on the fourth and fifth floors in Ashraf Nagar, Pune.
Representing Aquil Ahmed were advocates Adit S Pujari, Prerna Mukherjee, Bhavesh Seth, Vibhav Rawat, Shaikh Saipan, Md Arif Hussain, Abdul Shukoor, Shereef KA, and Mansoor Ali. The NIA’s legal team included Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi along with advocates Vikas Walia Jatin, Avinash Kumar Singh, Amit Rohilla, and Priyansh Raj Singh.
For further details, refer to the full judgment.
