This article reports the notification as published in the Gazette of India on 13 November 2026. The notification records the Central Government's opinion and the grounds it relies on; it is not a judicial finding against any individual, and the declaration is subject to reference to the UAPA Tribunal under Section 4 of the Act, which must adjudicate whether sufficient cause exists. The notification does not state what action, if any, follows against the foundation's properties or members.
- Issuer
- Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
- Act
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
- Status
- notified
- Outcome
- Notification S.O. 6182(E) dated 13 November 2026 declares the Islamic Research Foundation an unlawful association for five years from publication, under Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; subject to any order under Section 4 (Tribunal reference).
A five-year renewal, published a day before the old ban lapses
The Central Government has declared the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) an unlawful association for a further five years. The declaration is made by notification S.O. 6182(E), dated 13 November 2026 and published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) the same day.
The notification is issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Its operative clause directs that the notification “shall, subject to any order that may be made under Section 4 of the said Act, have effect for a period of five years from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette”.
The timing matters. The notification records that the duration of the previous ban under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act “shall cease on the 14th day of November, 2026”. Published on 13 November, the new declaration takes effect as the old term runs out, so there is no gap between the two bans. The notification is signed by Rakesh Rathi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, and carries file number F. No. 14017/4/2026-NI-MFO.
The third declaration: 2016, 2021, and now 2026
This is the third time the IRF has been declared an unlawful association. The notification recites that the Central Government first declared the foundation an unlawful association under Section 3(1) of the UAPA by notification S.O. 3460(E), dated 17 November 2016, and again by notification S.O. 4731(E), dated 15 November 2021.
Each earlier declaration was tested before the UAPA Tribunal. The notification records that the Tribunal, constituted under Section 5 of the Act to adjudicate whether sufficient cause exists for the declaration, confirmed the 2016 declaration by an order published in notification S.O. 1656(E), dated 22 May 2017, and confirmed the 2021 declaration by an order published in notification S.O. 1510(E), dated 30 March 2022.
The 2021 declaration ran for five years, and its term under Section 6(1) of the Act ceases on 14 November 2026. The new notification is the government's third declaration in ten years, and it follows the same pattern: a Section 3 declaration, followed by a reference to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The government's stated grounds
The notification opens with the government's stated position: the IRF “has been indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the security of the country and have the potential of disturbing peace and communal harmony and disrupting the secular fabric of the country”. That is the government's opinion as recorded in the notification, not a finding of a court or tribunal.
The notification then states the government's opinion that the IRF and its members, “particularly, the founder and President of the IRF, Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik alias Dr. Zakir Naik”, have been encouraging and aiding followers to promote, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities and groups. It gives three grounds for that opinion. First, that the statements and speeches made by Dr. Zakir Naik are “objectionable and subversive”. Second, that through such speeches and statements he has been “promoting enmity and hatred amongst different religious groups and inspiring youths of a particular religion in India and abroad to commit terrorist acts”. Third, that he “made radical statements and speeches to millions of people worldwide through international satellite TV network, internet, print and social media”.
These are the grounds the government has put on record in the notification itself. Whether they amount to sufficient cause for the declaration is the question the Tribunal must now adjudicate.
What the government says will follow if the ban is not renewed
The notification also sets out the government's further opinion on what would happen if the IRF's unlawful activities were not curbed and controlled immediately. It lists five consequences. The foundation would continue its subversive activities and re-organise its activists who are still absconding. It would disrupt the secular fabric of the country by polluting the minds of the people by creating communal disharmony. It would propagate anti-national sentiments. It would escalate secessionism by supporting militancy. And it would undertake activities prejudicial to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country.
On those reasons, the notification records the government's opinion that, having regard to the activities of the IRF, “it is necessary to declare the IRF as an unlawful association with immediate effect”. Again, these are the government's stated reasons, set out in the notification's own recitals. The notification does not annex evidence or refer to specific incidents; it states the government's opinion and the grounds on which the opinion rests.
BANTHRY ANALYSISHow a UAPA declaration works
The notification itself maps the procedure it follows. First, the Central Government declares an association unlawful under Section 3 of the UAPA, on forming the opinion that the association has become an unlawful association. Second, the declaration is referred to the UAPA Tribunal, constituted under Section 5, which adjudicates whether sufficient cause exists for the declaration. Third, the declaration has effect subject to any order the Tribunal may make under Section 4.
That sequence is visible in the IRF's own history, as recited in this notification: the 2016 and 2021 declarations were each confirmed by the Tribunal, and the confirmation orders were published in the Gazette. The present declaration follows the same route, and its five-year effect is expressly made subject to any order under Section 4.
One point of the procedure is easy to misread. The notification's recitals are the government's case for the declaration, stated in the government's own words. They are not the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal's adjudication comes after the declaration, and it is the Tribunal's order — not the notification — that finally confirms or sets aside the declaration. Until then, the declaration stands, but it stands as an executive declaration under challenge before the Tribunal.
What changes on the ground, and what does not
From the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, 13 November 2026, the IRF stands declared an unlawful association for five years, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise under Section 4. The declaration replaces the 2021 declaration, whose term ceases on 14 November 2026, so the ban continues without a break.
What the notification does not do is equally plain. It does not record any finding against any individual member of the foundation, and it does not state what action follows against the foundation's properties, funds or members. Those questions turn on other provisions of the UAPA and on the Tribunal's adjudication, neither of which this notification addresses.
The next step to watch is the Tribunal. Under the procedure the notification itself invokes, the Central Government must refer the declaration to the Tribunal, which will decide whether sufficient cause exists. The Tribunal's order, when made, will be published in the Gazette, as the 2017 and 2022 confirmation orders were.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This notification is a compact lesson in how executive power under the UAPA is structured. Notice three things. First, the declaration rests on the government's opinion, formed on stated grounds — the notification is the record of that opinion, and the recitals are the evidence of what the government relied on. Second, the declaration is not self-validating: the Act routes it to a Tribunal, constituted under Section 5, which must decide whether sufficient cause exists, and the declaration's effect is expressly subject to the Tribunal's order under Section 4. Third, the timing is deliberate — the new five-year term starts as the old one ends, so the ban never lapses.
When you read a Gazette notification like this, separate the three layers: what the government did (the operative clause), why it says it did it (the recitals), and what check the statute provides (the Tribunal reference). The operative clause is the law; the recitals are the government's case; the Tribunal is the safeguard. A sound answer on UAPA declarations keeps those three layers distinct.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- On what statutory basis did the Centre declare the IRF an unlawful association, and for how long does the notification have effect?
- What role does the UAPA Tribunal play after a Section 3 declaration, and which provision of the Act governs the reference?
- Why does the timing of the notification matter, given the date on which the previous ban ceased?
