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].