Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court observed that the definition of a "terrorist act" under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is expansive, encompassing not only immediate terrorist acts but also preparatory or contemplative actions that could materialize years later.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma emphasized that phrases like “with intent to strike terror” and “by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause” in the UAPA definition reflect the statute’s preventive intent. “Such an expression would not be linked only to an immediate terrorist act but would include acts that could be under contemplation for years together,” it noted.

"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," court said, emphasizing that  "it is common knowledge that terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) function in an extremely secretive manner and persons who are part of AQIS on most occasions, do not leave any trail of the evidence linking them to the organization.

Court observed so while upholding the conviction of Mohammad Abdul Rehman, an alleged member of AQIS, confirming a lower court’s verdict that found him guilty under Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA for conspiracy and recruitment related to terrorist activities.

Case Background

Rehman was convicted by a special NIA court in 2023 for his role in supporting AQIS. Investigations revealed that he had provided logistical and ideological support to AQIS and facilitated recruitment of individuals for terrorist training in Pakistan. Covert travel arrangements, inflammatory speeches, and possession of objectionable material were central to the prosecution’s case.

The case began in 2015 with the arrest of Mohd. Asif, who implicated Rehman and others. Evidence showed Rehman’s interactions with wanted militants in Pakistan like Chief of Lashker-e Taiba Zakiur Rehman Lakhwi, Chief of Jamat-ud-Dawa Hafiz Saeed and Kasim Bhai @ Sajid Mir who is wanted for being involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Rehman's speeches urging Muslims to unite against perceived oppression, and his active recruitment of young individuals under the guise of offering overseas job opportunities were also part of the prosecution's arguements.

Court's Observations

The high court upheld the lower court's findings, emphasizing that Rehman’s conduct and his association with other accused established a clear conspiracy to commit acts against national security. It highlighted that acts such as organizing travel to Pakistan for weapons training, delivering inflammatory speeches, and possessing anti-national material were part of a larger design to disturb India’s peace and integrity.

Citing testimony from witnesses, the court noted that Rehman’s speeches not only criticized political parties like the BJP and RSS but also propagated jihad, instigating his audience to act against the nation’s interests. Testimonies further revealed that he radicalized youth by portraying himself as a religious teacher while covertly pursuing AQIS’s objectives.

Court reiterated that preparatory acts and indirect evidence of conspiracy sufficed to establish culpability under UAPA. It found that Rehman’s intent and activities, including the recruitment of individuals for terrorism under the pretext of jobs, clearly demonstrated his role in the conspiracy.

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, said the court while concluding that the trial court had correctly convicted Rehman. 

Rehman, who has already spent over seven years in custody, had been sentenced by the trial court to concurrent terms of seven years and five months under Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA. He was also fined Rs. 25,000 under each charge, with an additional penalty of three months' imprisonment in case of default.

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