The Doctrine of Chilling Effect

To remember, it is an error to follow US Supreme Court decisions without adverting to differences of position in India.

View taken by this Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Arup Bhuyan v. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC 377; Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380, that under Section 3(5) of The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 10(a)(i) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 mere membership of a banned organization will not incriminate a person, is not good law. Before any organization is declared unlawful a detailed procedure is required to be followed. What of he who not only was a member when an organization was declared unlawful but wishes to continue being a part of such an unlawful association? It shows a conscious decision. He has to face consequences. He may not make grievance of chilling effect.

Hon’ble Justice M. R. Shah, Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, [Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007].