Delhi HC says spreading radical ideology on social media is within the ambit of UAPA

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.