Delhi HC says spreading radical ideology on social media is within the ambit of UAPA
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
The Delhi High Court ruled that using social media to disseminate radical ideology, even if there is no physical act of terror, can attract UAPA provisions while declining a bail plea of an operative of " The Resistance Front (TRF)", a terror outfit.The High Court noted that the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger , posted pictures of terrorists and incited people to commit heinous crimes and, if released, there would be a possibility of him tampering with the evidence as he is digitally adept.The bench of Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar expanded the definitions of Section 18 of UAPA noting it is "framed in such a broad way that even the usage of social media or any digital activity for the purpose of disseminating radical information and ideology falls within its ambit, and it is not necessary that the action (of the accused) must be a physical activity".The bench found enough evidence against the accused to deny bail, saying that the provisions in the section deal with punishment for conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment, or incitement to terrorist acts.Investigating the case, NIA said Ahenger was associated with Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a terror operative working for TRF and LeT.Shalla and two others were killed in an encounter on November 24, 2021. Ahenger, under Shalla's influence, was active on various social media platforms, on which radical content was shared, the NIA submitted.Further, the NIA said that the accused created several groups on social media like Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind and Shaikoo Naikoo, apart from multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed, aiming at motivating and radicalising vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF."The material on record also indicates that the messages shared by the appellant have the tendency to incite people to join terrorist activities. The appellant also used images, videos, etc, of slain Mehran Yaseen Shalla for glorifying terrorist activities, and the appellant has also been propagating the radical ideology of TRF to create unrest within the country," the court observed in its order.The defendant said the trial court failed to appreciate there is no material on record indicating his client's association with TRF and, therefore, UAPA cannot be invoked against him.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
11/7 case: Actions of ATS came under judicial scrutiny earlier too
Mumbai 7/11 bombings MUMBAI: The 11/7 case is not the first time ATS's methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny. In 2016, a special NIA court discharged 8 Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case. The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS. The credibility of ATS investigations faces another test next week with the impending verdict in 2008 Malegaon blast case; that killed 6 people and injured 100. Here, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own probe in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Despite NIA's findings, ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet. The NIA told court that during its investigation, "it was established no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo " Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge. Over 30 witnesses turned hostile. The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further shows the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were hurt in 4 blasts in Malegaon. ATS held 9 Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, it filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. But the case was handed over to CBI the same day after complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed. In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits. On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the 9 accused. While 7 were released on bail, 2 remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts. In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated. Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013. In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers had no animosity with the accused, "as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it." The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused, who are from the Muslim community, would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat. " The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have seen bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress. SC will hear Maha govt plea against 1 1 / 7 acquittals tomorrow A day after Bombay high court quashed the conviction of all 12 accused found guilty a decade ago for the 2006 Mumbai train blasts that killed 187 and injured 824 people, Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to hear on Thursday an appeal filed by Maharashtra govt challenging the acquittals. State govt told the apex court that HC misdirected itself into trivialities and misread cogent evidence, leading to failure of justice. Evidence had been meticulously collected by the prosecution to establish a chain, inculpating the accused for specific roles discharged by them to strike terror at the heart of the economic capital of India and wage a war against the country, govt added.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Judicial lens focused on ATS methods & conclusions in other cases too
Mumbai: The 11/7 train blasts case is not the first time the Anti-Terrorism Squad's (ATS) methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny. In 2016, a special National Investigation Agency ( NIA ) court discharged eight Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in the 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case. The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS. The credibility of ATS investigations faces another significant test next week with the impending verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case; that blast killed 6 people and injured 100. In this instance, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own investigation in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Despite NIA's findings, the ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with the NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet. The NIA informed court that during its investigation, "it was established that no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence the confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 15 most beautiful women in the world Undo " Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others, citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge. During the trial over 30 witnesses turned hostile. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further illustrates the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were injured in four blasts in Malegaon. The ATS arrested nine Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, ATS filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. However, the case was handed over to CBI the same day following complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed. In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits, a suspicion reinforced when Swami Aseemanand, an accused in the Mecca Masjid blast, confessed a right-wing group was involved. On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the nine accused. While seven were released on bail, two remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts. In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated. Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013. In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers who conducted the probe had no animosity with the accused, "in my view, as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it." The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused who are from the Muslim community would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat. " The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed that an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have witnessed bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress. Additionally, NIA found all confessional statements recorded by ATS were retracted as they were taken under "pressure and duress." Mohammed Majid, whom ATS identified as one of the planters, told NIA that on the day of the blasts he was 400 km away at Fulsawangi, Yavatmal. The order came 10 days after NIA, unlike its previous stance, strongly objected to the discharge pleas. Dubbing it as an "ulta face," the judge said, "At the time of first hearing of the matter, the prosecution has canvassed they have nothing to say except the reply filed by NIA upon the discharge applications," the judge said. During its reply to the discharge plea in Aug 2013, NIA did not oppose the pleas and instead said its evidence "was not in consonance with evidence collected earlier by ATS and CBI," which recommended prosecution of the nine accused. Judicial lens focused on ATS methods & conclusions in other cases too Mumbai: The 11/7 train blasts case is not the first time the Anti-Terrorism Squad's (ATS) methods and conclusions have faced judicial scrutiny. In 2016, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court discharged eight Muslim men who were labelled "terror accused" by ATS in the 2006 Malegaon serial blasts case. The presiding judge stated that these individuals, due to prior criminal records, were made scapegoats by ATS. The credibility of ATS investigations faces another significant test next week with the impending verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case; that blast killed 6 people and injured 100. In this instance, ATS named and arrested a dozen individuals. But NIA in its own investigation in 2016 provided a clean chit to six accused, including ex-BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur. Despite NIA's findings, the ATS' original investigation largely prevailed, with the NIA court ruling Thakur would indeed stand trial. However, the judge dropped charges invoked under MCOCA, charges initially applied by ATS but later revoked by NIA in its 2016 chargesheet. The NIA informed court that during its investigation, "it was established that no offence under MCOCA was attracted and hence the confessional statements recorded by ATS under the Act were not relied upon. " Notably, NIA in its 2016 chargesheet accused ATS of planting RDX traces to frame accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit. While NIA let off Thakur and five others, citing insufficient evidence, the judge refused to grant Thakur's plea for discharge. During the trial over 30 witnesses turned hostile. The history of probe into the 2006 Malegaon blasts further illustrates the pattern of judicial intervention. On Sept 8, 2006, 31 people died and 312 were injured in four blasts in Malegaon. The ATS arrested nine Muslim men, alleging they belonged to SIMI. In Dec 2006, ATS filed a 4,500-page chargesheet. However, the case was handed over to CBI the same day following complaints from Malegaon residents that the nine were framed. In 2011, the case was transferred to NIA after the CBI team indicated the role of right-wing outfits, a suspicion reinforced when Swami Aseemanand, an accused in the Mecca Masjid blast, confessed a right-wing group was involved. On Nov 5, 2011, the special MCOCA court granted bail to the nine accused. While seven were released on bail, two remained in jail due to their alleged role in the 11/7 blasts. In 2016, eight accused were discharged, and charges against one who died in 2015 were abated. Proceedings continued against four other accused, against whom NIA filed a chargesheet in 2013. In the discharge order, special judge VV Patil stated that while ATS officers who conducted the probe had no animosity with the accused, "in my view, as they discharged their public duty but in a wrong way, they may not be blamed for it." The judge expressed doubt that "it seemed highly impossible that the accused who are from the Muslim community would have decided to kill their own people to create disharmony in two communities, that too on a holy day of Shab-e-baraat. " The judge further referenced NIA findings, which revealed that an ATS witness, who previously claimed to have witnessed bomb preparation, retracted his statement, asserting it was taken under duress. Additionally, NIA found all confessional statements recorded by ATS were retracted as they were taken under "pressure and duress." Mohammed Majid, whom ATS identified as one of the planters, told NIA that on the day of the blasts he was 400 km away at Fulsawangi, Yavatmal. The order came 10 days after NIA, unlike its previous stance, strongly objected to the discharge pleas. Dubbing it as an "ulta face," the judge said, "At the time of first hearing of the matter, the prosecution has canvassed they have nothing to say except the reply filed by NIA upon the discharge applications," the judge said. During its reply to the discharge plea in Aug 2013, NIA did not oppose the pleas and instead said its evidence "was not in consonance with evidence collected earlier by ATS and CBI," which recommended prosecution of the nine accused.
Deccan Herald
4 hours ago
- Deccan Herald
TRF's terror tag bolsters India's case
The designation of The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as a global terrorist organisation by the United States is a victory for India and a vindication of New Delhi's position on cross-border terrorism. It is significant in view of India's contention that the organisation was behind the April 22 Pahalgam attack. .TRF twice claimed responsibility for the attack though it later denied involvement, probably under pressure from its handlers across the border. India has mounted persistent diplomatic pressure on the US and other countries to recognise the existence of the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan which is directed against India. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted that TRF had claimed responsibility also for other attacks, against Indian security forces. But it will be noted that Rubio did not name Pakistan, where the LeT is US has described TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and a front for the LeT. The LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammad have been marked for involvement in terrorist activities directed against India. Both organisations have been in the US FTO list from 2001. Pakistan has denied their existence while India has contended that both are active in that country. .India should continue its efforts to get TRF named as a terrorist outfit in the UN Security Council records. The UNSC resolution on the Pahalgam attack avoided mentioning TRF, under Pakistan's and China's pressure. The US designation will hopefully make the process easier, though Pakistan and China will continue to oppose it. The Ministry of External Affairs has welcomed the US decision and noted that it reflects the cooperation between India and the US on counter-terrorism. Earlier this year, the US had extradited Tahawwur Rana who was part of the conspiracy behind the 2008 Mumbai the US may have sent a positive signal to India with its stance on TRF, its position is not without contradictions. It has not fully accepted India's position on the Pahalgam attack and Pakistan's role in promoting terrorism in the country. Washington has played host to Pakistan's army and air force chiefs in recent weeks and sought to equate Pakistan with India. .The US and most other countries have the tendency to look at terrorism through the prism of their national interest and geopolitical considerations. India will have to initiate stronger diplomatic efforts to make its case fully heard and accepted. It will also not go unnoticed that the terrorists behind the Pahalgam attack are yet to be arrested.
