New Delhi [India], September 18 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has held that an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act is maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) confirming seizure or attachment of property allegedly linked to proceeds of terrorism.
A bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja observed that an order under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is not an interlocutory order but finally adjudicates the rights of the concerned party insofar as the seizure or attachment of the property is concerned.
The court said Section 21 of the NIA Act provides a statutory right of appeal against any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court, except an interlocutory order. Since an order under Section 25(6) finally decides the issue of seizure or attachment, it falls within the scope of appeal under Section 21, the bench held.
The observations came while the court was dealing with an appeal filed by Aquil Ahmed challenging a September 2024 order of the Special Judge at Patiala House Courts, which had dismissed his appeal against an order of the Designated Authority under Section 25(3) of the UAPA confirming attachment of property at Ashraf Nagar, Kondhwa, Pune.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, contending that Chapter V of the UAPA constitutes a complete code for dealing with seizure, attachment and forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism.
The NIA argued that Section 25(6) provides for an appeal against the Designated Authority’s order to the Special Court and that permitting another appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act would effectively create a second appeal against the attachment order.
It also argued that an order under Section 25(6) was interlocutory in nature and, therefore, could not be challenged under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
Rejecting the objection, the High Court said the UAPA itself makes a distinction between attachment and forfeiture of property.
“Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture,” the bench observed, noting that a separate show-cause notice is required under Section 27 of the UAPA before an order of forfeiture can be passed under Section 26.
The court held that attachment under Section 25 and forfeiture under Section 26 represent “two different distinct stages” of the proceedings, with the appeals relating to the respective stages being concerned with distinct final orders.
The bench further observed that there was no reason to presume that the High Court, while dealing with a subsequent appeal concerning forfeiture, would fail to take into account an earlier order passed by it in an appeal concerning attachment.
The court also considered an earlier order of a coordinate bench in Nasreen Mohsin Choudhary v. National Investigation Agency, in which the maintainability of an appeal against an order under Section 25(6) had been prima facie accepted.
It noted that in another matter, Asiya Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, the court had declined to entertain an appeal against an order under Section 25(6), but clarified that the decision was based on the peculiar facts of that case and did not contain any finding on the maintainability of such an appeal.
The bench also took note of a 2025 judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in Amit Agarwal v. Union of India, where the issue of an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act against an order under Section 25(6) of the UAPA had been considered.
The Delhi High Court noted that Section 25 of the UAPA provides a mechanism for seizure or attachment of property suspected to constitute proceeds of terrorism, including an opportunity to the affected person to make a representation and a subsequent adjudication by the Designated Authority and the Special Court.
The court said the consequence of such attachment is distinct from forfeiture, which can follow under Section 26 after the statutory procedure under Section 27 is followed.
“Section 25(6) of the UAPA is final and not ‘interlocutory’ in nature,” the bench held, adding that the provision finally determines the issue of seizure or attachment of the property.
Accordingly, the bench held the present appeal to be maintainable and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the NIA.
The court directed that the appeal be listed for final hearing on December 2, 2026. The order was passed on September 15, 2026, in the appeal filed by Aquil Ahmed under Section 28 of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the NIA Act. (ANI)
Delhi HC holds appeal maintainable against UAPA property attachment order, says Section 25(6) order not interlocutory
