<p>The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue any further direction to the tribunal constituted to examine the ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) for the seventh time.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice Kurian Joseph said the SC order on the functioning of the tribunal under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was crystal clear and so it did not need to issue any more directives.<br /><br />A counsel representing two erstwhile SIMI members urged the court to ensure that the tribunal adhered to the rules of evidence. They wanted assurance that the tribunal would not only go by confessional statements, which were extracted from alleged members, and secret documents that were not shared with the lawyers for the organisation.<br /><br />Challenging the ban, the counsel pressed for orders saying that the entire adjudication had become farcical since it relied either on doubtful confessions or secret documents.<br /><br />The court, however, said there was no need for any interim direction and posted the matter for final hearing on August 12 before a three-judge bench that previously took up similar matters.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue any further direction to the tribunal constituted to examine the ban on the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) for the seventh time.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justice Kurian Joseph said the SC order on the functioning of the tribunal under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was crystal clear and so it did not need to issue any more directives.<br /><br />A counsel representing two erstwhile SIMI members urged the court to ensure that the tribunal adhered to the rules of evidence. They wanted assurance that the tribunal would not only go by confessional statements, which were extracted from alleged members, and secret documents that were not shared with the lawyers for the organisation.<br /><br />Challenging the ban, the counsel pressed for orders saying that the entire adjudication had become farcical since it relied either on doubtful confessions or secret documents.<br /><br />The court, however, said there was no need for any interim direction and posted the matter for final hearing on August 12 before a three-judge bench that previously took up similar matters.</p>
