The Delhi High Court has ruled that speeches aimed at indoctrinating innocent men and recruiting them for unlawful activities against the nation cannot be overlooked merely because no specific terrorist act was carried out. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal of Mohd Abdul Rehman, who is accused of being affiliated with Al-Qaida’s Indian branch. Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma made this observation while rejecting Rehman’s challenge to his conviction and sentence of seven years and five months under the anti-terrorism law, the UAPA.
The Delhi High Court, in an order dated December 23, 2024, underscored the broad scope of the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), emphasising that it encompasses not only immediate acts of terrorism but also preparatory or contemplative actions that might materialise years later.
The bench, highlighted the preventive intent of the UAPA by interpreting phrases like “with intent to strike terror” and “by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause” as indicative of the law’s focus on addressing long-term threats.
The court remarked, “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.” This interpretation was made in the case of Rehman, who was convicted by a special NIA court on February 10, 2023, and sentenced on February 14, 2023, for his involvement with the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Rehman was found guilty of providing logistical and ideological support to AQIS, facilitating recruitment for terrorist training in Pakistan, and engaging in covert travel arrangements, inflammatory speeches, and possession of objectionable material.
The judgment, arising from Sessions Case No. 9378/2016 linked to FIR No. 67/2015 at the Special Cell, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi accessed by Organiser, sentenced Rehman under Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five months, along with a fine of Rs 25,000 for each count. In default of payment, he was to serve an additional three months of simple imprisonment.
The High Court further 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.” It added that terrorist organisations like AQIS operate in an “extremely secretive manner,” with members often leaving no direct evidence linking them to the group.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to December 2015, with the arrest of Mohd. Asif, a key figure who became instrumental in unearthing a larger network of individuals involved with the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). Mohd. Asif’s arrest occurred on December 14, 2015, at the Welcome Bus Stand near the Seelampur flyover in New Delhi. Acting on specific intelligence, the Special Cell of Delhi Police apprehended him after identifying him based on a tip from a secret informer. During interrogation, Asif disclosed his involvement with AQIS and revealed critical information about the network’s activities and members, including interactions with key individuals and militant operatives.
According to Asif’s statements, he had illegally travelled to Pakistan via Iran in June 2013, along with two other individuals, Mohd. Rehan and Mohd. Sharjeel Akhtar, ostensibly to receive arms training. Investigation into his travel records confirmed that the trio had booked tickets through Minar Travels in New Delhi, flying from Delhi to Tehran on June 23, 2013. However, the return tickets from Tehran to Delhi on July 10, 2013, were never used, raising suspicions about their intentions. Further inquiries revealed that Asif later returned to India in 2014 through Turkey, using an Emergency Certificate issued by the Indian Consulate in Istanbul after falsely claiming to have lost his passport.
The information extracted from Asif led to the arrest of other individuals, including Zafar Masood alias Guddu, and the appellant in the case, Syed Anzar Shah. Zafar Masood admitted to his association with AQIS and disclosed that he had travelled to Pakistan in 1999, where he underwent arms training. He further revealed connections with various members of AQIS and provided information about facilitating safe hideouts for militants in India. Investigations also revealed that Masood had obtained a forged passport under a false identity during his stay in Gujarat, which was confirmed through forensic verification.
The appellant, Syed Anzar Shah, also made significant revelations during interrogation. He admitted to meeting Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) operatives in 1999 and facilitating safe hideouts for militants associated with JeM and AQIS. Shah also disclosed his association with Sanaul Haq alias Maulana Asim Umar, the head of AQIS, who had studied with him at Darul Uloom in Deoband, Uttar Pradesh. The investigation further revealed that Shah had travelled to Pakistan in early 2015 through Saudi Arabia, meeting top militant leaders, including Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Hafiz Saeed, and Sajid Mir, who were involved in planning terrorist activities against India.
Another co-convict, Abdul Sami (Co-Convict No. 3), was arrested following disclosures by Shah. Sami revealed that he had been influenced by extremist speeches and propaganda videos by militants like Maulana Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, leading to his radicalisation. Shah reportedly facilitated Sami’s travel to Pakistan via Dubai, where he received arms training before returning to India through Nepal in 2015. Further investigations confirmed Sami’s travel details through Emirates Airlines and established his connections with AQIS operatives.
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 arguments.
The case also brought to light financial and logistical support provided by other accused individuals. Syed Mohd. Zishan Ali, apprehended in 2017, was found to have provided financial aid to AQIS members. Similarly, Sabeel Ahmed, another accused arrested in 2020, had been declared a Proclaimed Offender earlier and was involved in facilitating funds for Shah through intermediaries in Saudi Arabia.
The investigation culminated in the filing of a chargesheet on June 10, 2016, under Sections 18, 18-B, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against the appellant and other co-accused. A supplementary chargesheet filed on March 18, 2019, added charges under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 12(1)(B) of the Passports Act. Subsequently, on October 17, 2017, charges were framed against the appellant and co-convicts by the trial court, marking a significant step in prosecuting individuals associated with AQIS and their activities in India.
High Court Findings on Rehman’s Appeal
The High Court upheld the lower court’s conviction of Mohd. Abdul Rehman under Sections 18 and 18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court emphasised that Rehman’s actions, coupled with the testimonies of witnesses, unequivocally demonstrated a conspiracy against national security.
Association with Terrorist Activities
The court highlighted Rehman’s active involvement with Al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), noting that his actions included facilitating travel for arms training in Pakistan, delivering inflammatory speeches, and radicalising youth under the guise of religious instruction.
“Preparatory acts and indirect evidence of conspiracy suffice to establish culpability under UAPA,” the court remarked, underscoring that direct proof of covert acts isn’t always necessary in cases of terrorism.
Witness Testimonies
Witnesses testified that Rehman’s speeches were explicitly anti-national, targeting political parties like the BJP and RSS while propagating jihad. These speeches were designed to incite hostility and encourage radical actions.
One witness stated, “On many occasion, I went to hear the speech of Maulana Abdul Rehrtlan, he· used to start the speech with Quaran however, thereafter, he used to start addressing on the contentious issues like Dadri pertaining to lynching of Akhlaq and of Jagatpur. He also used to deliver the provocative speech to the effect that RSS, the BJP and VHP conspire against the Muslims and that Muslims should also unite. He also used to deliver speech regarding Jehad. Since I did not find his speeches in the interest of the Nation so I discontinued meeting him since the month of November 2014.”
Role in Recruitment and Radicalisation
Rehman actively recruited individuals for terrorist activities under the pretence of offering job opportunities. He also provided logistical support for youth seeking to join AQIS, further solidifying his role in the conspiracy.
Travel Details and Co-Conspirators:
Investigations revealed that Rehman had visited Pakistan multiple times through countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, meeting top terrorist leaders like Hafiz Saeed, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and others wanted for orchestrating attacks like 26/11.
“The clandestine meetings and facilitation of training camps in Pakistan demonstrate the calculated efforts of the accused to bolster AQIS operations in India,” observed the court.
Disclosure Statements
Co-convict Mohd. Asif’s statements revealed that Rehman and others had illegally travelled to Pakistan for arms training. Asif identified Rehman as a key figure in coordinating travel and resources for AQIS operatives.
“Rehman ensured safe passage for recruits and provided funding for their travel and training,” the court noted, citing these statements.
Rehman’s involvement extended to illegal travel. Investigations uncovered that he travelled from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan in February 2015, despite the absence of Pakistani visa stamps on his passport. This irregularity was supported by flight records from Emirates Airlines, which showed that he travelled from Karachi to Dammam via Dubai. Rehman’s clandestine journey also included meetings with top militant leaders, such as Zakir-ur-Rehman Lakhwi of LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) and Hafiz Saeed of JuD (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). These meetings were allegedly for the purpose of coordinating future terrorist activities in India. The court emphasised, “As per the Emirates Airlines report, the Appellant travelled from Karachi without valid travel documentation, indicating clandestine activities.”
Fake Passports and Forgery
Rehman and other co-accused were found to possess forged passports, enabling them to bypass immigration checks and travel undetected. This included a fake passport in the name of “Zafar Masood Sheikh,” which was verified during the investigation.
Meeting with Militant Leaders
During his visits to Pakistan, Rehman met with Hafiz Saeed (Chief of Jamat-ud-Dawa), Sajid Mir (wanted for 26/11 attacks), and Farhatullah Gauri, further evidencing his deep connections with global terror networks.
“Rehman’s association with individuals declared as global terrorists is a testament to his commitment to disrupting India’s integrity,” the judgment stated.
During the investigation, it was revealed that Rehman had met with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) militants as far back as 1999. This included his encounter with Salim, an individual involved in the infamous IC-814 hijacking, who had also been connected to JeM. Rehman was further linked to AQIS (Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent), particularly to Maulana Asim Umar, a key figure in AQIS. This connection was substantiated by Rehman’s own admissions, including his facilitation of the travel of several accused persons to Pakistan for training. The court noted, “During investigation, it was revealed that Abdul Rehman had sent several accused persons to Pakistan for training through a network of facilitators.” This revealed a network through which Rehman allegedly orchestrated the movement of individuals involved in terrorism.
Youth Radicalisation
Testimonies from Co-Convict No. 3 (Abdul Sami) detailed how Rehman convinced young individuals to pursue jihad by exploiting their religious beliefs. Sami admitted to receiving arms training in Pakistan after being influenced by Rehman’s teachings.
Witnesses such as Dil Nawaj and Khalid Pasha testified that Rehman was instrumental in delivering radical speeches that incited young people to join AQIS and undergo training in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These witnesses recalled how Rehman encouraged youth to participate in jihad and facilitate terrorist acts against the Indian state. The court observed, “Intercepted calls and witness statements substantiate the involvement of the accused in radicalising individuals for terror activities.” This radicalisation effort formed a significant part of the evidence linking him to the broader AQIS terror network.
The court noted that “It is, therefore, imperative that if any individual or group of persons, by their action or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent upon sowing seed of mutual hatred, and their proposed activities are likely to create disharmony and disturb equilibrium, sacrificing public peace and tranquility, strong action, and more so preventive actions are essentially and vitally needed to be taken. Any speech or action which would result in ostracisation of communal harmony would destroy all those high values which the Constitution aims at. Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all laws, and State action and above all the Constitution.”
Other Criminal Activities
Apart from these key findings, Rehman was also implicated in other criminal activities, including violations of the Arms Act in Odisha and Jharkhand. These activities highlighted his active involvement in a larger network that dealt with arms procurement and terrorist operations. The charges against him included conspiracy, recruitment for terrorism, and the facilitation of terrorist acts through a series of coordinated actions. The court found him to be directly involved in terrorist activities under Sections 18, 18B, and 20 of the UAPA, which deal with the organisation and support of terrorist acts.
What does the Defence Say?
In his defence, Rehman’s counsel made several arguments to dispute the charges. One of the primary defences was that there was insufficient evidence to link him to any actual terrorist acts, especially in light of Section 15 of UAPA, which defines a “terrorist act” as one that causes significant harm or damage. The defence argued that Rehman’s activities, while suspicious, did not constitute an overt act of terrorism. However, the court disagreed, stating that preparatory acts, including radicalisation and recruitment for terrorism, were substantial enough to fall under UAPA’s provisions. “Preparatory acts, including recruitment and fundraising for terrorist activities, fall within the ambit of UAPA.”
Rehman’s defence also questioned the authenticity of evidence related to his travel to Pakistan, particularly the Emirates Airlines flight records. The defence pointed out that the documents lacked certain details, such as his passport number.
Nevertheless, the court maintained that the corroborative evidence, including intercepted communication and witness testimony, confirmed the travel and its terrorist-related purpose. The court found that these documents were sufficient to support the claim that Rehman had travelled to meet with militants in Pakistan.
Moreover, the defence’s argument that Rehman’s speeches were a form of free expression was also rejected. The court highlighted that while freedom of speech is a constitutional right, it cannot be used as a shield for promoting terrorism. “Freedom of speech cannot be a shield for activities promoting hatred and terrorism.”
Another argument raised by the defence was that witness testimony, such as those of Saquib Khan and Khalid Pasha, did not directly implicate Rehman. The defence contended that their statements were not sufficient to prove his active participation in terrorism.
However, the court relied on a broader body of evidence, including testimonies, phone intercepts, and documents recovered from Rehman’s possession. The cumulative effect of these pieces of evidence painted a clear picture of Rehman’s role in orchestrating terrorist activities, leading the court to affirm the charges under the UAPA. “The trial court, after examining 60 witnesses and intercepts, found substantial evidence to hold the accused guilty of offences under UAPA.”
Analysis of the Court Order
The trial court convicted the appellant and co-convicts for conspiring to prepare for terrorist activities, based on several factors including the appellant’s illegal travel to Pakistan, recruitment for a terrorist group, inflammatory speeches, possession of objectionable materials, and the creation of fake documents to obtain passports. These actions were collectively viewed as evidence of a shared intent to undermine national security.
The verdict emphasises that involvement in terrorism is not limited to direct participation in attacks but also includes activities that facilitate or incite terror, such as recruitment, radicalisation, and illegal travel. Despite not engaging in actual terrorist acts, the appellant’s role in these preparatory actions was deemed sufficient for conviction under UAPA.
The court’s analysis focused on the cumulative impact of the evidence, noting that the appellant’s efforts to radicalise individuals and support militant operations indicated a broader plan to destabilise the country. It also pointed out that the materials seized from the appellant reflected an ideology aimed at causing dissatisfaction and undermining the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
The appellant was convicted under Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA, for conspiracy and recruitment for terrorism, rather than for direct unlawful activities. The court stressed the threat posed by inflammatory speeches and recruitment, citing past judicial observations that such activities should not be overlooked simply because they took place in a seemingly calm or sensible environment.
Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, dismissing the appellant’s appeal and any related applications, affirming that the appellant’s association with terrorist entities and his secretive activities were enough to support the trial court’s decision.
(Download the detailed copy of the court order here)
Comments