The High Court in an order on December 23 stated, “The definition of ‘terrorist act’ under Section 15 of UAPA clearly includes the expressions ‘with intent to strike terror,’ by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause. Such an expression would not be linked only to an immediate terrorist act but would even include acts that could be under contemplation for years together and may be given effect to after several years.”
A division bench was hearing an appeal against the conviction of a member of Al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The High Court said that bids to brainwash youth and recruit them can’t be ignored. The prosecution accused the AQIS member of being answerable for sending people to Pakistan for arms training.
During his visit to Pakistan, the petitioner met the leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba and chief of Jamaat-ud-Dawah, who is wanted for his engagement in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the prosecution claimed. In 2015, the petitioner visited Bengaluru and met a co-convict, and they discussed the planning and objectives of AQIS. The petitioner also gave provocative speeches against the nation and propagated ‘jihad’ in his speeches.
The witnesses stated before the court that he gave inflammatory speeches to the effect that RSS, BJP, and VHP conspired against Muslims and that Muslims should also unite.
The division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma noted that Section 18 of UAPA punishes preparation for terrorist acts, even when a specific terrorist act has not been identified.
“The planning to give effect to terrorist acts could also extend over years, and under Section 18 of UAPA, the law aims to deal with such preparation for terrorist acts, even during such cases where a specific terrorist act has not been identified,” it said.
The bench added, “Moreover, speeches that are given to brainwash innocent youth, coupled with attempts to recruit them for committing unlawful and illegal acts against the country, cannot be completely swept out on the ground that no particular terrorist act has been committed.”
The court observed that there was sufficient evidence to show and link the petitioner with the main convict, who acquired passports and visited Pakistan, stating that the petitioner, beside the co-accused, is linked in a larger network involved in giving inflammatory speeches, distributing material, having relations with Pakistan-based organizations, recruiting persons for terrorist acts, and brainwashing hatred against India and its political leaders.
The court further highlighted that a terrorist act includes indulging in conspiracy with terrorist organizations and associated persons. “A perusal of the definition of ‘terrorist act’ under UAPA shows that…(it) includes any acts that intend to threaten or are likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India. The definition is wide enough to include indulging in conspiracy with terrorist organizations and associated with persons who are rendering support to terrorist organizations.”
Stating that for conspiracy, particular covert acts are not necessary, even secretive and clandestine support to declared terrorist organizations would also suffice, the court mentioned that the evidence and the testimonies clearly show the petitioner’s association with terrorist organizations for the commission of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
