A Delhi court has convicted DeM chief Asiya Andrabi and two associates for terror conspiracy, sedition and waging war against India under the UAPA and IPC. The court held that they actively promoted Kashmir’s secession through speeches, gatherings and online propaganda supporting violence.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has convicted the chief of the banned separatist outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM), Asiya Andrabi, along with her close associates Sofi Fehmeeda and Nahida Nasreen, for their role in a terror conspiracy and seditious activities aimed at waging war against the Government of India and promoting the secession of Jammu and Kashmir.
Special NIA Judge Chander Jit Singh of the Karkardooma Court held that the National Investigation Agency had successfully proved that all three accused were active members of the proscribed terrorist organisation Dukhtaran-e-Millat and had acted together to spread anti-India and secessionist ideology.
ALOS READ: Delhi HC Demands NIA Response on MP Engineer Rashid’s Bail in UAPA Terror Case
The court found that the accused used speeches, public meetings and social media platforms to propagate their agenda.
The case arose from an investigation initiated by the NIA on the directions of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs after intelligence agencies flagged that members of DeM were using online platforms and public events to incite hatred, glorify armed militancy and openly call for Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan.
The agency described Dukhtaran-e-Millat as an all-women separatist group with a declared objective of secession from India.
In a detailed judgment dated January 14, the court convicted the three women under Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. They were also found guilty under Sections 120B for criminal conspiracy and 121A for waging war against the Government of India under the Indian Penal Code.
Additionally, the accused were convicted under Sections 153A and 153B for promoting enmity and Section 505 for making statements that could cause public mischief.
The court held that the evidence on record clearly showed endorsement, encouragement and active support for armed struggle as a means to seek the secession of Kashmir from India.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Gives Yasin Malik 4 Weeks to Reply in NIA’s Death Penalty Appeal
It was observed that there was a clear agreement among the accused regarding their activities, which were aimed at promoting secession in the name of religion and advocating Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, along with support for violence.
Relying on witness statements and digital evidence including videos, posts and reposts on social media, the court noted that the accused were
“working in tandem towards the common goal of secession of Kashmir from India in the name of religion.”
The judge further observed that this coordinated conduct was not even seriously disputed during the trial.
The court also examined the meaning and scope of the term “integrity of India” and held that it refers to the country being united and undivided, including its physical unity. It ruled that any attempt to seek secession of an integral part of the country on religious grounds would clearly attract Section 153B of the IPC.
Significantly, the Additional Sessions Judge pointed out that while the accused repeatedly claimed that Kashmir should merge with Pakistan because it has a Muslim-majority population, they did not make similar claims regarding other Muslim-majority regions in India.
The court observed,
“The entire focus of the narrative of the accused is Kashmir and nothing else,”
The court rejected the defence arguments based on United Nations resolutions and claims of self-determination, noting a clear contradiction in the accused’s stand. It observed that the accused simultaneously claimed that Kashmir was already part of Pakistan while also alleging that India was illegally occupying it.
Concluding its findings, the court stated,
“It is clear that the accused do not bear allegiance to the Constitution of India and are not ready to uphold its sovereignty.”
Case Title:
National Investigation Agency v. Aasiya Andrabi @ Aasiyeh Andrabi & Ors.
Read Judgement:
Read More Reports On UAPA Terror Case
