Using Social Media For Disseminating Radical Ideology Attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that using social media for disseminating radical information or ideology attracts UAPA and that it is not necessary that such an act must be a physical activity.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar analyzed Section 18 of UAPA which deals with punishment for conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment or incitement of terrorist acts.
“The said provision is framed in such a broader 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 same is to be a physical activity,” the Court said.
The Bench made the observation while denying bail to one Arsalan Feroze Ahenger in a UAPA case. It was alleged that Ahenger was under the influence of one Mehran Yaseen Shalla and was digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content was being shared.
It was alleged that he created certain groups on social media like Ansar Gazwat-UI-Hind (AGH) and Shaikoo Naikoo etc. and created multiple Gmail IDs via which radical views were expressed.
As per NIA, Ahenger motivated and radicalised vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF and for this, he used social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Twitter etc.
Denying bail to Ahenger, the Court noted that messages shared by him had the tendency to incite people to join terrorist activities.
It added that Ahenger also used images, videos etc. of slain Mehran Yaseen Shalla for glorifying the terrorist activities and that he was also propagating radical ideology of TRF to create unrest within the country.
“Material does indicate that the Appellant was disseminating information for inciting local youths to indulge in activities which will lead to commit a terrorist act which is sufficient to bring the Appellant in the ambit of Section 18 of UAPA, thereby satisfying the test of rejection of bail under UAPA,” the Court said.
Noting that right to speedy trial has been held to be concomitant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court said that it is always open for Ahenger to approach the Competent Court for the grant of bail if the trial does not commence in the near future or that there is an undue delay in completion of trial.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, SPP with Mr. R.K. Bora, Advocate
Title: ARSALAN FEROZE AHENGER v. NIA