Exclusion of Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik was lawful, says High Court

10 November 2010 by

Dr Zakir Naik and The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Entry Clearance Officer, Mumbai India [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin) – read judgment

As we reported last week, the High Court has approved the exclusion of Dr Zakir Naik, a popular Indian television Islamic preacher, from the UK on the grounds that his presence would not be conducive to the public good.

Despite the High Court finding that the initial decision to exclude Dr Naik was procedurally unfair and that Article 10 ECHR (the right to freedom of expression) was engaged in relation to his supporters, his challenge to the exclusion was rejected. This case focuses the spotlight once more on the somewhat limited territorial reach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, as well as the wide discretion of the Home Office to exclude radicals which it considers have displayed ‘unacceptable behaviours’.

Dr Naik’s judicial review was based on four grounds; 1. A breach of legitimate expectations; 2. Procedural unfairness; 3. A violation of the right to freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 ECHR, and; 4. Failure to give sufficient reasons and to take into account all relevant circumstances and to act rationally.

Towards the end of May and into June several newspapers portrayed Dr Naik as “preacher of hate” and a supporter of extreme Islam. Dr Naik maintains that these allegations are wholly unjustified and that his lectures were based on peaceful Islamic values. He maintained that the statements being used against him by the Home Office were manipulated excerpts taken out of context.

Following a meeting and correspondence between Dr Naik and the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary made the decision to exclude him on the 16 June 2010. This was conveyed to Dr Naik on 17 June, one day prior to his expected arrival in the UK. The decision was based on the fact that several of his statements fell within the Home Office’s “Unacceptable Behaviour Policy”, an indicative guide to types of behaviour which would normally result in grounds for exclusion, and that his presence would not be conducive to the public good.

Theresa May the new Home Secretary has robustly defended her decision in what some commentators have hailed a “political test” of her mettle.  May claims it will help ensure that the UK does not become a platform to promote violent extremism.

The applicant’s first ground of challenge, namely that the exclusion breached Dr Naik’s legitimate expectation was “the heart of his case”. A legitimate expectation,

“[i]s that where a public authority has made a promise or adopted a practice which represents how it proposes to act in a given area, the courts will protect an expectation that it will be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so”. (para 48 Judgment)

Dr Naik has visited the UK on 15 occasions since 1990 using various visitor visas ranging from 6 months to 5 years in length. The most recent of which was a 5 year business visa, allowing multiple entry, granted by the Deputy British High Commission in Mumbai in June 2008. Dr Naik made plans for several public lectures in June and July at Sheffield Arena, Wembley Arena and Birmingham National Exhibition Centre, with expected audiences of approximately 45,000 people.

Mr Hussain QC Counsel for Dr Naik argued that in addition to this adopted practice was the fact that there had been “ample opportunity” to consider Dr Naik’s acceptability on conducive grounds. During his previous visits he had addressed large public audiences and had even attracted some controversy in 2006.

The High Court dismissed this ground stating that the course of conduct did not lead to a legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State had addressed the issue of his public statements and concluded that he was suitable to be in the UK.

“The grant of a visa does not require, as a condition precedent, substantive consideration of exclusion”. (para 53 Judgment)

The second ground of procedural unfairness was based on the fact that he did not have an opportunity to make representations before the decision to exclude him was made, a point which the Secretary of State concedes. In addition the fact that the decision was conveyed to him a day before his scheduled arrival added considerable time pressures in responding to the matters against him. The High Court held that the decision dated 16 June was

“[f]lawed for a lack of procedural fairness”.

Evidence that Home Office officials has began to research Dr Naik’s profile in May 2009 indicates that it would have been possible to construct a case against Dr Naik well before June 2010. It appears that the initial decision was made rather haphazardly in order to prevent him from travelling on 18 June, an approach criticised by the Court.

Despite this initial finding of unfairness the High Court held that subsequent dealings with Dr Naik, namely the more detailed letter to him on the 9 August was not procedurally unfair. The final judicial review challenge, failure to give sufficient reasons and to take into account all relevant circumstances and to act rationally was linked in the judgment to procedural unfairness. It held that for the same reasons as above that the 16 June letter did not give sufficient reasons, but that this was remedied by the more detailed 9 August letter. It went onto to note that the irrationality challenge had an established and high threshold which was not met in this case.

The Article 10 challenge raises interesting and topical points in relation to the territorial jurisdiction of Convention rights and freedoms. It has been widely debated in recent cases (R (Smith) v Secretary for Defence [2010] UKSC 29 (see our post); Al-Skeini & Others v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] 1 AC 153, currently before the Grand Chamber; Bankovic v Belgium [2001] 11 BHRC 435) whether Article 1 ECHR guarantees the rights and freedoms of the Convention to those outside of the State’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is primarily attached to the territory of the state, with some exceptions. There is a balance to be struck between the regional identity of the Strasbourg Court and the universalistic aspirations of Convention rights.

The Court had difficulty in stretching the guarantees of Article 10 to Dr Naik as he was applying from outside the jurisdiction. Applying both Al-Skeini and R (Smith) it was decided that Dr Naik was unable to directly assert his Article 10 rights. The High Court went on to analyse the less used aspect contained within Article 10, the right to receive information.

The imparting and receipt of information are two sides of one coin.

As such Dr Naik’s supporters based in the UK, those like the Islamic Dawah Centre were entitled to the right to receive the information that Dr Naik would have given them during his public lectures. Article 10 was accordingly engaged. However, the High Court held that the interference with Article 10 could be justified under Article 10(2) as it was proportionate and in accordance with the law governed by the Immigration Rules and the published Unacceptable Behaviours Policy.

The High Court also noted that Dr Naik’s freedom of expression was not drastically curtailed as he could still distribute his views through Peace TV and other mediums; the justified interference was not deemed to be “major” by the Court.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more


  1. ismail assenjee says:

    dr zakir naik’s videos are are freely available for sale in the uk ,over the internet and he has his own islamic channel which is broadcast 24 hours in the uk ,his comments on the grounds of which he has been excluded are available on all of the above mentioned media so why exclude him ?

  2. Khan says:

    UK is not OK…

    UK should learn some laws or probably borrow some rules from Indian constitution or some one who has done LLB, at least.

  3. Iqbal says:

    If this decision is right then why let Mr Fazlur Rahman who is part of Taliban come HS get a life.

  4. Micheal says:

    Shame on us.It’s really a decision of cowardly behaviour

  5. guru says:

    unlawful act done by the UK….SHAME.

  6. michael white says:

    Bad decision..abuse of rights..really shows how uncondusive and horrible we’ve become

  7. abdullah says:

    pathetic decision

  8. Michael Hill says:

    If `unacceptable behaviour` is a reason for deportation, I, for one, am sure that rioting, drug pushing, & other base crimes against our laws could be added to this; let`s get on with it.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: