On Tuesday, 5th August, the Supreme Court of India delivered a firm dismissal of a plea filed by deceased terror-accusedSaquib Nachan, who had challenged two government notifications that officially declared ISIS and its related groups as terrorist organisations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. Nachan had submitted the petition in December 2024, but he passed away in June 2025 due to a brain hemorrhage. Despite his demise, the matter was still taken up for hearing by a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi.

The petition centered around Nachan’s claim that both he and his son, Shamil Nachan, had been wrongfully arrested on suspicion of having links with ISIS. The apex court, however, clarified that such accusations were not under its immediate jurisdiction and must be addressed in the proper criminal trial court.

The Court made it clear that it would not consider a blanket challenge to the two notifications issued by the Government of India in February 2015 and June 2018, under Section 35 of the UAPA. The decision was definitive—there was no room for bypassing due legal process, especially when it came to national security matters.

Following Nachan’s death, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. She presented the argument that the government’s declarations violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 25 of the Constitution, particularly because they allegedly misinterpreted religious terms such as “Caliphate” and “Jihad” by associating them with terrorism. Gupta argued that “He says the word ‘caliphate’ is wrongly interpreted. That violates his fundamental right to religion. He has given substantial portions indicating what, according to the Quran, is the meaning of caliphate and jihad,” trying to emphasize that these terms have spiritual significance in Islam and should not be tied to violent extremism.

However, the Supreme Court was not convinced by this line of reasoning. The Bench underlined that context matters—these terms must be interpreted based on their usage in the context of alleged terrorist activity, not merely by their religious connotations. “When the notification used the word ‘caliphate’, it was in relation to terrorist activity. So it has to be read in that context,” observed Justice Joymala Bagchi.

Gupta also questioned the lack of procedural parity between how unlawful associations are declared under Section 3 of the UAPA and how terrorist organisations are listed under Section 35. She contended that the term ‘terrorist organisation’ is not explicitly defined in the Act and that without such a definition, the Government cannot issue such notifications arbitrarily.

In response, Justice Surya Kant clarified that the Act does indeed provide a definition of ‘terrorist act’, and any organisation involved in such acts can be officially categorised as a ‘terrorist organisation’. He also noted that the true intent of the petition was not to question the constitutionality of the government notifications but rather to seek relief in ongoing criminal proceedings involving Nachan and his son.

“It seems to us that instead of a challenge to the impugned notifications, the remedy for the petitioner and his son lies in approaching the appropriate forum,” the court concluded. Justice Kant reaffirmed that the petitioner had the opportunity to seek bail or any other appropriate remedy through a competent court, stating plainly, “He can always avail his remedy before the appropriate forum,” and thereby disposed of the petition.

Saquib Nachan: The Man Who Turned Padgha into a Terror Base

Saquib Nachan was not a name unknown to law enforcement. His terror trail began as far back as 2002, when he was accused of orchestrating three bomb blasts in Mumbai within just four months—from 6th December 2002 to 13th March 2003. His chosen targets were crowded spaces like railway stations and markets, indicating a clear attempt to create maximum fear and damage. The final blast was especially deadly, killing 11 people and injuring 82 others.

He was arrested on 10th April 2003 by the Mumbai police and spent 8 years behind bars. He later got bail upon furnishing a ₹1 lakh bond. In March 2016, the court finally convicted him in the 2002–2003 blast case, but surprisingly, he served less than 2 years of this conviction. In November 2017, he was released five months early on account of being labelled a ‘disciplined’ prisoner.

But his criminal record did not end there. On 4th August 2012, Nachan was arrested again, this time for his alleged role in the attempted murder of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activist Manoj Raicha. Again, he managed to secure bail in August 2014.

Far from being deterred by repeated arrests and jail time, Saquib Nachan resumed his extremist activities. On 9th December 2023, he was arrested yet again—this time by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for allegedly operating an ISIS module in Maharashtra. Initial findings of the investigation were alarming. According to the NIA, Saquib had declared Padgha village in rural Thane as a ‘liberated zone’ and renamed it ‘Al-Sham’—a term commonly used by extremists in Syria to denote territory under their control.

Even more troubling, he was actively encouraging young Muslim men to leave their hometowns and settle in Padgha, building it up as a terrorist recruitment and training base. This indoctrination drive was well-organised and reportedly growing in influence.

On 11th August 2023, the NIA arrested his son, Shamil Nachan, in relation to the Pune ISIS module case. He was sent to judicial custody following the arrest. During searches, the NIA unearthed incriminating materials at Shamil’s Thane residence, adding weight to the suspicions.

As per the NIA's findings, Shamil and five other accused had assembled Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in a house in Pune. Even more disturbingly, they had also organised a bomb-making and training workshop at the same location back in 2022.