The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Mohd Abdul Rehman, an Al-Qaida associate, reinforcing that speeches aimed at radicalizing youth and supporting terrorism can be prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court emphasized the broad definition of terrorist acts, disregarding the need for specific incidents while citing evidence of Rehman’s involvement in a larger terror network.
New Delhi: Today, the Delhi High Court emphasized that –
“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”,
even in the absence of a specific terrorist act. The court made this observation while dismissing the plea of Mohd Abdul Rehman, an alleged associate of Al-Qaida’s Indian wing, against his conviction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Amit Sharma upheld the seven-year-five-month jail term handed to Rehman by the trial court. The bench highlighted that under the UAPA, the definition of a “terrorist act” is broad enough to encompass “indulging in conspiracy with terrorist organisations and association with persons rendering support to such organisations”, without the necessity of identifying a specific act of terror.
“In conspiracies of this nature, specific covert acts would not be required but secretive and clandestine support to declared terrorist organisations would also be sufficient,”
the court stated.
Read Also: The Interest of the Minor Child is Paramount: Supreme Court Ruling in Custody Case
The court pointed to evidence showing Rehman’s close association with others involved in a larger terror network. This network engaged in:
- Delivering inflammatory speeches.
- Disseminating radical material.
- Establishing links with Pakistan-based organisations.
- Recruiting individuals for terrorist acts.
- Collecting funds to support illicit travel.
- Fanning hatred against India and its political leaders.
The bench noted that these activities constituted a conspiracy for committing terrorist acts, even though no specific act of terror was identified.
Rehman argued that while he was accused of preparatory acts and recruitment, no evidence suggested he committed or planned a specific terrorist act. The court dismissed this argument, stating that planning terrorist acts often takes years and that “the identification or existence of a specific act of terror is not required for punishment under the provisions.”
The court added that
“it is common knowledge that terrorist organisations like Al-Qaida in the Indian subcontinent function in an extremely secretive manner and their associates often leave no trail of evidence.”
In February 2023, the trial court convicted Rehman and others for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. The evidence included illegal travel to Pakistan for secret meetings, inflammatory speeches, and the use of false passports. The trial court also noted the appellant’s ideology, which professed violence against India and its leaders, including the Prime Minister.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 18 of the UAPA, which addresses conspiracy and preparation for terrorist acts, was appropriately applied in this case. It concluded, “The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE