Use Of Social Media For Disseminating Radical Information Falls Within Ambit Of Section 18 UAPA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is broad enough to include 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 bail application was filed by the Appellant, who has been alleged to be digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content has been shared.

The Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, "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."

Case Brief

The trial court rejected the bail application of the Appellant who has been charged with offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121 & 122 of IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38 & 39 of the UAPA.

The backdrop of the case revolves around the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, conspiracies were being hatched by various terrorist organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba and The Resistance Front for targeted attacks on minorities, security forces, political leaders and other important persons. Some of these conspiracies were allegedly planned and have also been executed to create unrest, instability and fear in the region of Kashmir and other parts of the country.

It was also alleged that the internet was being used extensively by the members of the TRF for the purpose of disseminating information and radicalising local youth. The Appellant was accused of being digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content has been shared. It is stated that the Appellant 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, thereby motivating and radicalizing vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.

Thus, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the Appellant are prima facie true and rejected the bail application of the Appellant under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.

It was contended by the Appellant that TRF was not designated as a terrorist organization in terms of Section 35 of the UAPA either at the time of registration of FIR, or at the time of arrest of the Appellant, or even when the chargesheet was filed against the Appellant. it was further stated that mere factum of sharing images of by the Appellant on social media will not constitute an offence punishable under the UAPA.

Court's Analysis

The Court referred to the parameters for granting bail for offences punishable under UAPA have been laid down under Section 43D(5) of UAPA.

The Court observed that the instant case must be subjected to the twin-prong test: the test for rejection of bail and the tripod test to determine whether the allegations against the Appellant are prima facie true.

"This Court is of the opinion that the material on record indicates that the Appellant has abetted and incited the commission of terrorist act in the country which is punishable under Section 18 of the UAPA.", the Court said.

While refusing to grant bail, the Court noted that the 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. It is well settled that the statutory restriction under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is more stringent than its counterpart provision under the CrPC/BNSS", the Court added.

However, the Delhi High Court keeping tin mind Article 21, kept it 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.

Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.

Cause Title: Arsalan Feroze Ahenger V. National Investigation Agency (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5522-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Siddharth Satija, Sowjhanya Shankaran, Akash Sachan, Anuka Bachawat,

Respondent: Advocates Rajesh Mahajan, SPP, R.K. Bora with DSP Surender Pal.

Click here to read/download Judgment