[UAPA] Contemplation Of Terrorist Act For Years Even Without Giving Effect To It Constitutes A Terrorist Act: Delhi High Court

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma 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 the same would even include acts, which could be under contemplation for years together and may be given effect to after several years.”

The Court was considering the appellant's challenge to his conviction under Sections 18 and 18B of UAPA.

For context, Section 18 UAPA punishes conspiracy, attempt, abetment, incitement of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act. Section 18B provides for punishment for recruiting persons for a terrorist act.

The prosecution's case is that the appellant, a member of AQIS, was responsible for sending people to Pakistan for arms training. It is alleged that during his visit to Pakistan, the appellant met the Chief of Lashker-e-Taiba and Chief of Jamat-ud-Dawa, who is wanted for being involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

It is further alleged that in 2015 the appellant visited Bangalore and met with a co-convict and that they discussed about the planning and objectives of AQIS.

The prosecution also alleged that the appellant gave inflammatory speeches against the nation. As per Prosecution Witnesses' (PW), the appellant propagated 'jihad' in his speeches. The PWs further stated he delivered provocative speeches to the effect that the RSS, BJP and VHP conspired against Muslims and that Muslims should also unite. It is alleged that the appellant radicalized the youth by giving such inflammatory speeches in order to recruit them for the commission of terrorist acts.

The prosecution argued that although there was nothing on record about any particular act or object was in contemplation, the overall circumstances demonstrate that the appellant was preparing to commit an act, which would disturb the unity, integrity, peace and tranquility of India.

The Court observed that Section 18 UAPA punishes preparation for terrorist acts, even when a specific terrorist act has not been identified. It stated, “The planning to give effect to terrorist acts could also extend over years and under Section 18 of the UAPA, the law aims to address such preparation for terrorist acts, even in cases where a specific terrorist act has not been identified.”

It further observed that speeches meant to brainwash the youth along with attempts to recruit them for illegal acts against the country also fall within terrorist activities.

“Moreover, speeches which are given to brainwash innocent youth coupled with attempts to recruit them for committing unlawful and illegal acts against the Country cannot be completely washed away on the ground that no specific terrorist act has been committed.”

Here, it noted that there was sufficient evidence to show and link the appellant with the main accused who obtained passports and visited Pakistan.

It noted that the appellant along with co-accused are a part of a larger network involved in giving inflammatory speeches, disseminating material, having links with Pakistan-based organizations, recruiting persons for terrorist acts, and instigating hatred against India and its political leaders.

Taking note of these acts, it remarked that terrorist act includes indulging in conspiracy with terrorist organizations and associated persons.

“A perusal of the definition of the “Terrorist act” under UAPA shows that the said definition includes any acts which 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 organization.”

It stated that for conspiracy, specific covert acts are not necessary, even secretive and clandestine support to declared terrorist organisations would also suffice.

Here, it noted that the evidence and the testimonies clearly disclosed the appellant's association with terrorist organisations for the commission of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.

The Court thus dismissed the appellant's plea against his conviction.

Case title: Mohd Abdul Rehman vs. State NCT of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1391