Kashmir seminary declared unlawful under anti‑terror law, sparks outcry

On the day the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to declare a prominent Islamic seminary in the Kashmir Valley unlawful, the decree instantly transformed the institution into a prohibited entity, froze its assets and halted all teaching activities, thereby setting the stage for a wave of condemnation that would echo across the region’s political and religious spectrum.

Within hours of the announcement, senior Kashmiri politicians and leading religious scholars publicly denounced the measure as yet another illustration of New Delhi’s proclivity to employ sweeping security legislation to curtail institutions they deem inconvenient, arguing that the decision exemplified a recurring pattern of administrative overreach that sidesteps transparent evidence and undermines established judicial safeguards.

The timing of the ban, which coincided with a series of recent security-related orders targeting civil society groups in the valley, prompted protestors in Srinagar and surrounding towns to organize rallies, submit petitions to the High Court and demand a full disclosure of the alleged links between the seminary’s curriculum and extremist propaganda, even as the government’s justification remained confined to classified briefings that were not made public.

Government officials, defending the action, asserted that intelligence assessments indicated the seminary was being used as a conduit for radicalisation, yet the absence of publicly presented evidence intensified concerns over procedural opacity and reinforced the perception that anti‑terror statutes are increasingly being wielded as a convenient instrument for political control rather than strictly for national security.

The episode, by exposing the ease with which anti‑terror legislation can be applied to an educational and religious establishment without transparent due process, underscores a broader systemic issue wherein the blurring of security imperatives and political objectives continues to strain the already fragile governance framework of the contested region, leaving both local stakeholders and observers to question the durability of rule‑of‑law principles under such a regulatory regime.

Published: April 28, 2026