The Delhi High Court has determined that individuals can challenge property attachment orders issued under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by filing appeals directly with the High Court, rejecting the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) position that such challenges must go through special courts first.
A two-judge bench led by Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja rejected the NIA’s argument in the case of Aquil Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency. The agency had insisted that Section 25(6) permits only one appeal route, before a special court, while Section 28 covers High Court appeals solely against final forfeiture orders under Section 26.
The court distinguished between property attachment and forfeiture, emphasizing they represent distinct legal stages. An attachment order under Section 25(6) does not automatically trigger forfeiture, which instead requires a separate show-cause notice under Section 27 followed by a final hearing. The judges ruled that attachment orders are final decisions on their own, conclusively determining whether property can be seized.
The dispute arose from Ahmed’s challenge to a June 2023 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order that validated the seizure of the fourth and fifth floors of a property in Pune’s Ashraf Nagar. The NIA had argued that Section 21 of the NIA Act, allowing High Court appeals against special court rulings, did not extend to attachment orders, as it would introduce an unnecessary second layer of review. The court disagreed, concluding that attachment orders are independent proceedings and do not conflict with the appeal provisions under Section 28.
This decision clarifies that individuals affected by property attachment orders under the UAPA can now bypass special courts and seek direct High Court intervention. It also resolves a legal uncertainty over whether attachment orders qualify as final orders eligible for appeal.
Ahmed’s legal team included Adit S. Pujari, Prerna Mukherjee, and Bhavesh Seth, while the NIA was represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi and additional counsel. The judgment does not examine wider implications for UAPA cases but sets a precedent for how attachment-related appeals will proceed.
The ruling strengthens legal protections for property owners by ensuring they can challenge attachment orders without first exhausting special court remedies. It also establishes that attachment proceedings are self-contained, preventing the NIA from restricting appeals to a single judicial tier.
