The New Indian Express ·
Police commissioner lacks powers to seal premises under UAPA if it is not used by banned outfit: Madras HC
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court held that the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Police does not have the powers under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to seal a premises when it is not used by a banned organisation.
It has ordered him to de-seal immediately a rented premises used by the Popular Front of India (PFI), which had vacated soon after it was banned in 2022.
A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan passed the orders while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Commissioner of GCP and the Assistant Commissioner of Vepery challenging the orders of the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai.
The order dated 22.1.2026 directed the de-sealing of the building premises located at Periamet in Chennai based on a petition filed by the owner of the premises.
The bench said a reading of Section 8 of the Act would make it clear that the power is to be exercised only to prevent an unlawful association or any person associated with it from using the articles found in the notified place (house in this case), and to prevent the members of the association or any person from entering the notified place.
“In a case where no movable property was found in the premises, and the Association had admittedly vacated the premises, the lock and seal action is not only unwarranted, but done without jurisdiction and in utter disregard to the provisions of the Act,” it said in the recent order.
It observed, in the instant case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that the unlawful association was functioning at the premises on the day when the search was conducted, and no incriminating material was seized from the premises.
Concurring with the submissions of advocate I Abdul Basit representing the respondent-building owner AS Abdul Ali, the bench cited certain judgments, including the one by the Madras High Court in the Hindu Munnani Vs Commissioner of Police, which had held that Section 8 of the Act does not empower the concerned authority to lock or seal the premises.
“Therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Police dated 26.10.2022, directing sealing of the premises is clearly unjustified,” the bench ruled.
Upholding the Principal Sessions Court’s order to de-seal the premises, the bench said there is “no infirmity” in the impugned order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge.
Pointing out that the Police have denied the landlord his premises for nearly four years ‘without any justification’, the bench ordered them to remove the lock and seal from the premises within 48 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of the court’s order.
The respondent, Abdul Ali, had rented his building to the PFI at Periamet for running its office. The fundamentalist organisation was banned on 28.9.2022, and it vacated the premises on the same day.
Meanwhile, the Commissioner of GCP, who is an additional district magistrate by virtue of his office, issued an order to the AC, Vepery, on 26.10.2022 by virtue of his powers under sections 7 and 8 of UAPA to search the premises and make an inventory of movable properties.
Subsequently, a search was conducted, but no immovable properties were found. Yet, the premises were sealed.
Challenging the order of the Commissioner, the building owner approached the Madras High Court, which disposed of the petition with the direction to file a petition before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
As a result, the building owner filed a petition before the Principal Sessions Court, which set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed the removal of the lock and seal. Challenging this order, the Commissioner and the AC filed the writ petition in the High Court.