The Centre on Tuesday defended its decision to ban Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) while alleging that it operates contrary to the laws of the land and mobilises students and youth for propagation of Islamic rule and support for Jihad.

The Centre, in its affidavit filed on Wednesday in the Supreme Court, has said that an organisation that aims to establish Islamic rule cannot be permitted to operate in a secular society.

 “…any constitution which prescribes such an Oath of Allegiance to its members must be seen as in direct conflict with the democratic sovereign setup of India and should not be allowed to be perpetuated in our secular society,”  the Centre has said in its affidavit.

Asserting that the activities and the character of SIMI is capable of undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, the Centre’s affidavit says, “the evidence brought on record clearly and unambiguously establishes that despite being banned since 27th September, 2001, except for a brief period in between, the SIMI activists are associating, meeting, conspiring, acquiring arms & ammunitions, and indulging in activities which are disruptive in character and capable of threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. They are in regular touch with their associates and masters based in other countries. Their actions are capable of disrupting peace and communal harmony in the country.”

Stating that the SIMI leaders are in regular touch with their overseas associates and masters, the affidavit says that SIMI’s actions are capable of disrupting peace and communal harmony in the country and their stated objectives are contrary to the laws of our country, particularly their object of establishing Islamic rule in India.

Having referred to the activities of SIMI and the objects it is seeking to achieve including Islamic rule, the Centre has said that under no circumstances it (SIMI) can be permitted to subsist.

The Centre filed its affidavit in response to a petition challenging ban on SIMI.

During the hearing today, petitioner’s lawyer sought time to file rejoinder on Centre’s affidavit. The advocate appearing for the Centre too sought adjournment.  The court adjourned the matter on the request made by lawyers appearing for both the sides.