NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Tribunal has upheld the five-year ban slapped by the Government of India on Sikhs for Justice. The UAPA Tribunal was headed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma of the Delhi High Court. The group, which demands a separate Sikh homeland called Khalistan, was first declared an unlawful association under the UAPA in 2019. This verdict further strengthens the government's claim over the supposed anti-national activities of SFJ along with its linkages of spreading secessionist ideology.Ban Background The MHA had banned SFJ under Section 3 of the UAPA initially. According to them, the activities of the organization were detrimental to India's sovereignty, integrity, and public order. MHA had further asserted that SFJ's campaigns, including online referendums, were intended to disrupt peace in Punjab and other parts of India. It was accused of inciting violence, radicalizing youth, and seeking international support to propagate anti-India narratives. Arguments Before the Tribunal During the trial, the government had produced evidence that included intelligence reports and recorded incidents of SFJ's activities. These documents show that the organization was trying to create unrest in India by funding violent protests and using social media platforms to spread propaganda. The government added that SFJ was in league with foreign powers and had contributed to the influence of the 2021 farmers' protests. It further added that the activities of SFJ were beyond freedom of speech and were instead a threat to national security. However, SFJ dismissed all these claims and said its advocacy was peaceful and part of exercising democratic rights. It further argued that the ban on it violated the fundamental freedoms enshrined under the Constitution of India. Tribunal's Decision After weighing the evidence and arguments, Justice Sharma held that the activities of SFJ were clear threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India. According to the ruling, such secessionist activities may go adrift without a ban, thus damaging national security. This decision also points out how the campaigns and acts undertaken by SFJ are not in the form of just dissent or voice but also to destabilize the country which thus requires curb in order to maintain public order and internal harmony. Effects of this Judgment The verdict enforces the ban and conveys a strong message regarding India's zero-tolerance policy towards secessionist movements. At the same time, the judgment brings out the role of the judiciary in maintaining the balance between individual rights and national security concerns. This judgment itself strengthens the government's position in combating anti-national elements but reinforces the legal framework under the UAPA. This decision is likely to have a long-term impact on the activities of SFJ and other similar organizations, which would be a very important victory for India's internal security apparatus.