Radicalising youth through social media attracts UAPA: Delhi High Court

The stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) would apply when social media or such digital means are used to encourage acts of terrorism, observed the Delhi High Court recently [Arsalan Feroze Ahenger v. National Investigation Agency].

The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation while rejecting the bail application of a person named Arsalan Feroze Ahenger, who stands accused of propagating terrorist ideologies through social media and digital platforms.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has accused Ahenger of being associated with a radical group based in Jammu and Kashmir called The Resistance Front (TRF).

He was arrested for allegedly disseminating inflammatory information against India on the internet, which was aimed at radicalising local youth and drawing them towards terrorist organisations and their radical ideology.

The Court observed that UAPA is broad enough to subsume such digital activity.

"Section 18 of the UAPA prescribes that any person who directly or knowingly incites commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act is liable to be punished under this Section. 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 stated. 

The Court also noted from material produced by the NIA that Ahenger had posted photographs of terrorists inciting people to commit terrorist acts. Such acts qualify as an offence under UAPA, the Court said.

“Material does indicate that the Appellant (Ahenger) 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 stated. 

The Court proceeded to hold that it is not inclined to give Ahenger bail even though he has remained imprisoned for about four years, adding that he has not satisfied the tests required under the UAPA for the grant of bail.

"Undoubtedly, the Appellant has been in custody for an approximate period of four years. However, the fact that the punishment for the offence under Section 18 of UAPA is life imprisonment and the fact that there are witnesses whose identities have not been disclosed and would be at risk, if the Appellant is enlarged on bail, cannot be ignored. Moreover, given that the Appellant is in a position of influence, there is a high possibility of him tampering with the evidence and may pose a flight-risk. Therefore, the Appellant also fails to satisfy the tripod test."

However, it added that Ahenger can approach the courts again for the grant of bail if there is any delay in the trial against him.

"Keeping in mind that right to speedy trial has been held to be concomitant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is always open for the Appellant 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," the July 7 ruling said.

The NIA’s chargesheet had stated that Ahenger had created groups on social media like Ansar Gazwat-UI-Hind (AGH) and Shaikoo Naikoo, and multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed to radicalise vulnerable youth into joining terrorist groups.

Ahenger was accused of using social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Twitter for these ends.

He was arrested in 2021. He had approached the Delhi High Court for bail after the Patiala House Court rejected his bail application.

Advocates Siddharth Satija, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Akash Sachan and Anuka Bachawat appeared for Ahenger.

Special Public Prosecutor Rajesh Mahajan with Advocate RK Bora appeared for the NIA.

[Read judgment]