Using social media to spread radical ideology invites UAPA: Delhi high court
said, declining the bail plea of an operative of "
(TRF)", a terror outfit.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
HC underscored that the accused posted photos of terrorists and incited people to commit heinous acts and, if released, there is a high possibility of him tampering with the evidence as he is digitally adept.
Expanding on the definition of Section 18 of UAPA, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that 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".
HC found enough evidence against the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger, to deny him bail, as provisions in the section deal with punishment for conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment, or incitement to terrorist acts.
NIA, the investigating agency in the case, said Ahenger was associated with one Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a terror operative working for TRF and LeT. Shalla, along with two other accomplices, was killed in an encounter on Nov 24, 2021.
Prior to that, under Shalla's influence, Ahenger was digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content was shared, the NIA submitted.
NIA said 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, which aimed to motivate and radicalise vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"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 lawyer for the accused argued that 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
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Breaking News Live July 18: Brazil's Lula calls Trump's tariff threat 'unacceptable blackmail'
06:01 (IST) Jul 18 n a significant development, the US has designated The Resistance Front, a proxy of Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) that was behind the Pahalgam attack, as a foreign terrorist organisation. In a statement issued by the Department of State on Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this action demonstrates the US' commitment to enforcing President Donald Trump's call for justice for the Pahalgam attack. Twenty-six people were killed in the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility for the attack, but later backtracked as tensions soared between India and Pakistan. Rubio said the Department of State is designating the TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). "TRF and other associated aliases have been added to LeT's designation as a FTO and SDGT pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Executive Order 13224, respectively. The Department of State has also reviewed and maintained the FTO designation of LeT," he said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Illegal content on X endangers democracy, says government
Elon Musk (File photo) NEW DELHI: The Centre told Karnataka high court Thursday that allowing the proliferation of unlawful content on social media in the name of free speech endangered democracy, and accused Elon Musk-owned X of attempting to escape accountability by taking shelter under the IT Act's 'safe harbour' protection. Questioning the US-based company's locus standi to move an Indian HC for protection of fundamental rights, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the constitutional protection to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) must not be misunderstood as absolute protection for unlawful content. 'Constitutional jurisprudence clearly differentiates between protected speech that contributes meaningfully to democratic discourse and unlawful speech that undermines societal stability and individual rights,' it said. 'Safe harbour' not an absolute right, but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties: Govt It said the 'safe harbour' provision, which protects social media platforms from liability for content posed by their users, was a privilege available only to those internet intermediaries which were responsible. X had moved HC seeking to restrain govt departments from taking coercive action against it and its officials for the content on the microblogging site and said, 'Unlawful and unjustified orders harm the X platform and its ability to operate. The issuance of information blocking orders without following due process of law, and in violation of IT Act and the Constitution, violates X's right to equality under Article 14 and detrimentally impacts its business. ' In written submissions before HC, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said, 'Proliferation of what can be termed as unlawful content on social media platforms poses an unprecedented threat to public discourse, democracy and societal stability.' 'Social media intermediaries possess an unparalleled ability to amplify information instantaneously, without traditional barriers like language or geographical limitations, and thus carry significant responsibilities,' the law officer said. Advent of the internet, social media and digital intermediaries had fundamentally altered the character and scale of human communication, demanding a re-examination and suitable tailoring of constitutional standards, Mehta said, adding India's internet subscriber base had grown from 25 crore in 2013-14 to 97 crore in Sept 2024. The govt's stand that 'safe harbour' does not mean blanket immunity can have implications for all social media platforms. This also rhymes with the growing call for repeal of Section 230 of US's Communications Decency Act from which social media giants derive the immunity. The Centre said 'safe harbour' protection for internet intermediaries was not an unconditional entitlement but a privilege contingent upon strict adherence to statutory duties. While committing to full protection of the right to free speech, the govt said, 'The question raised by X cannot be examined merely from the prism of the person using this medium. 'The concept of 'safe harbour' inherently includes rigorous responsibilities, requiring intermediaries to promptly and effectively remove or disable unlawful content upon receiving notice. These safeguards are deliberately designed to balance innovation with accountability, ensuring intermediaries do not become platforms for unlawful activities.' The govt said X's attempt was to present 'safe harbour' as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties. 'Such a stand fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection. 'Safe harbour' is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct,' it said. It told HC that X had confused itself with the play of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act. It said Section 69A pertains explicitly to govt orders for blocking content with serious penal consequences for non-compliance whereas Section 79 deals with due diligence obligations to maintain 'safe harbour' protection. The Centre said X purposefully blurred the clear distinction to escape accountability for its statutory duties. It said social media platforms use 'amplification' mechanisms to push visibility of a particular type of view. 'The algorithms used by intermediaries actively curate and boost content, shaping public opinion and significantly influencing social harmony or disorder. This active role demands heightened accountability, necessitating robust regulation specifically tailored for social media, distinct from traditional media,' the Centre further said.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
U.S. designates Pakistani group's offshoot as 'terrorist' over Pahalgam attack
The U.S. government designated The Resistance Front, considered an offshoot of the Pakistani extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, as a "foreign terrorist organization" over the Pahalgam attack in Jammu and Kashmir that killed 26 people, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement on Thursday (July 17, 2025). The Resistance Front initially took responsibility for the attack in Pahalgam before denying it days later. Lashkar-e-Taiba, listed as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the United States, is a terror group accused of plotting attacks in India and in the West, including the three-day deadly assault on Mumbai in November 2008. TRF's designation by Washington as a "foreign terrorist organization" and "specially designated global terrorist" enforced President Donald Trump's "call for justice for the Pahalgam attack," Mr. Rubio said. Mr. Rubio called TRF a "front and proxy" for Lashkar-e-Taiba. It is considered an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, a Delhi-based think tank. TRF emerged in 2019. The attack sparked heavy fighting between nuclear-armed Asian neighbours India and Pakistan in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry. Islamabad denied responsibility while calling for a neutral investigation. Washington condemned the attack but did not directly blame Pakistan. On May 7, the Indian Armed Forces launched 'Operation Sindoor', hitting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, setting off an exchange of attacks between the two countries by fighter jets, missiles, drones, and artillery until a ceasefire on May 10.
