Spreading radical ideology on social media attracts UAPA, says Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar clarified that Section 18 of the UAPA covers not just physical acts but also virtual actions that incite or facilitate a terrorist act

The Delhi High Court has said that spreading radical ideology online on digital platforms including through social media, can lead to prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar clarified that Section 18 of the UAPA covers not just physical acts but also virtual actions that incite or facilitate a terrorist act.

The Court noted that circulating extremist content digitally is sufficient ground for legal action under this law.

The ruling came while the Court was hearing a plea filed by Arsalan Feroze Ahenger, an alleged overground worker of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and The Resistance Front (TRF), challenging the trial court's September 2024 order denying him bail.

Arsalan Feroze Ahenger was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2021 and booked under several provisions of the UAPA, including Section 17 (funding terrorism), Section 18 (conspiracy or incitement to commit terrorism), Section 18B (recruitment for terrorism), Section 38 (membership of a terrorist organisation), and Section 39 (supporting a terrorist organisation).

According to the NIA, Ahenger was associated with slain LeT terrorist Mehran Yaseen Shalla and had used multiple social media accounts to propagate extremist ideologies.

The agency also claimed that Ahenger had created multiple online groups to circulate radical propaganda and motivate individuals to join terrorist causes.

In his defence, Ahenger argued that merely sharing images of a slain terrorist did not constitute a terrorist act under the UAPA and that there was insufficient evidence linking him to any conspiracy or operational support to Shalla.

However, the High Court dismissed his argument, holding that the digital dissemination of radical content with terrorist intent squarely falls within the scope of Section 18.

The bench noted that there was enough material indicating that Ahenger had posted photographs of terrorists and had incited others to engage in terrorist activities.

The Court concluded that this conduct satisfies the legal threshold for denying bail under the UAPA. "The provision is framed in such a broad manner that even the usage of social media or any digital activity to disseminate radical information and ideology falls within its ambit," the Court said.

While acknowledging that Ahenger has been in custody for nearly four years, the Court stated that the offence under Section 18 carries a punishment of life imprisonment. It also noted the potential risks of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, especially given the appellant's alleged influence and affiliations. Citing the more stringent bail standard under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, the Court held that Ahenger failed to meet the conditions required for release.

However, the Court clarified that the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21, and that Ahenger is free to seek bail in the future if there is undue delay in the commencement or completion of the trial.

With inputs from ANI