Islamic Research Foundation Declared Unlawful for Five Years Under UAPA Section 3

The news

The Ministry of Home Affairs on Friday (November 13, 2026) declared Zakir Naik’s Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for another five years. This is the third time the ban has been extended; the outfit was first banned in 2016. The notification, issued under Section 3(1) and 3(3) of the UAPA, will take effect from its publication in the Official Gazette, subject to any order under Section 4.

The government said that if the IRF's activities were not curbed, the organisation would 'take the opportunity to continue its subversive activities and re-organise its activists who are still absconding; disrupt the secular fabric of the country by polluting the minds of the people by creating communal disharmony; propagate anti-national sentiments; escalate secessionism by supporting militancy and undertake activities which are prejudicial to the sovereignty, integrity and security of the country.' Naik, who is abroad, is being probed by the National Investigation Agency for alleged terror activities. He fled India after the July 1, 2016, Dhaka cafe bombing and is accused of spreading hatred through Peace TV and social media, where he has over 20 million followers.

What does the UAPA notification say?

The notification invokes Section 3(1) and 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, declaring IRF an unlawful association for five years from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The declaration is subject to any order that may be made under Section 4 of the Act. The government's stated grounds include preventing the organisation from continuing subversive activities, reorganising absconding activists, creating communal disharmony, propagating anti-national sentiments, and supporting militancy. These are the government's apprehensions, not independently established findings.

What has the ban achieved and missed?

The repeated extensions indicate the government's continued concern about the IRF's activities, but the ban has not led to Naik's prosecution or return to India; he remains abroad and is under NIA investigation. The declaration targets the association, while the investigation concerns alleged individual activities. The case highlights the balance between preventive action under UAPA and the need for due process and evidence scrutiny, as the government's stated grounds remain allegations rather than proven facts.