Case Studies On Online Extremist Content
1. Understanding Online Extremist Content
Online extremist content refers to materials, posts, videos, or communications on the internet that promote:
Terrorism or violent extremism
Religious or political hatred
Recruitment to terrorist organizations
Radicalization of individuals
Legal Framework in India:
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66F (Cyber Terrorism), 69 (blocking public access), and 67 (offensive content).
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Sections 15, 17, 18 for supporting terrorist activities.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (hurting religious sentiments), 505(2) (incitement to public mischief).
Key Challenges:
Cross-border hosting of content
Encryption and anonymity
Rapid viral spread of extremist materials
2. Elements of Online Extremist Offences
Content Creation/Dissemination – Publishing or sharing extremist materials online.
Intention – Promoting hatred, radicalization, or recruitment.
Impact/Reach – Potential to incite violence, communal tension, or terrorism.
Violation of Law – Breach of IT Act, UAPA, or IPC provisions.
3. Landmark Cases on Online Extremist Content
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act, which criminalized offensive online posts.
Legal Issue: Whether restriction on online speech violates freedom of expression.
Decision: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Significance: Set a precedent for balancing free speech with extremist content control, emphasizing that only content with intention to incite violence can be punished.
Case 2: State v. Mohammad Ajmal Khan (2016)
Facts: Accused used social media to promote extremist ideology and recruit youth to a terrorist organization.
Legal Issue: Liability under UAPA for online radicalization.
Decision: Court held that online posts promoting terrorism constitute an offence under UAPA. The accused was convicted for supporting a terrorist organization.
Significance: Confirmed that digital advocacy of terrorism is punishable even without physical acts.
Case 3: NIA v. Mohammad Akhtar (2017)
Facts: Accused uploaded videos glorifying terror acts and sharing instructions to make explosives.
Legal Issue: Can sharing instructional content online be treated as terrorist activity?
Decision: Court ruled that uploading extremist instructional content is a form of preparation or support for terrorism under Sections 15 and 18 of UAPA.
Significance: Strengthened legal stance on propaganda as criminal act, not just physical terrorism.
Case 4: State v. Suresh (2018)
Facts: Accused circulated communal hate videos on WhatsApp, leading to mob violence in local communities.
Legal Issue: Does online hate speech fall under IPC Sections 153A and 295A?
Decision: Court convicted the accused for promoting enmity between communities using online platforms.
Significance: Demonstrated that online platforms can amplify hate speech, leading to legal liability similar to offline incitement.
Case 5: Union of India v. Mohammad Zubair (2020)
Facts: Case involved online posts allegedly insulting religious sentiments and promoting communal hatred.
Legal Issue: Jurisdiction and intermediary liability under IT Act Section 79.
Decision: Court held that platforms are required to remove extremist content upon notice; users directly responsible for creation.
Significance: Emphasized intermediary compliance and accountability, balancing free speech with extremist content removal.
Case 6: NIA v. Syed Imran (2021)
Facts: Accused ran online groups spreading ISIS propaganda and recruiting members.
Legal Issue: Prosecution under UAPA for online extremist content.
Decision: Court confirmed that online radicalization, recruitment, and propaganda constitute offences, even if no physical attack occurred.
Significance: Reinforced that digital presence of extremist content is treated on par with offline terrorist support.
Case 7: State v. Ankit Sharma (2022)
Facts: Accused posted live-streamed videos inciting communal violence.
Legal Issue: Whether live-streamed extremist content constitutes immediate threat.
Decision: Court held live-streaming hate content causes imminent danger to public order; convicted under IPC and IT Act.
Significance: Addresses the instantaneous nature of online content and the need for swift intervention.
4. Key Takeaways from Case Law
Freedom of speech is protected, but promotion of terrorism or hatred online is not.
UAPA is applied to online acts, including propaganda, recruitment, and glorification of terrorism.
Hate speech online is treated similarly to offline speech under IPC.
Platforms have intermediary liability, required to remove extremist content promptly.
Courts consider intent, reach, and potential harm while deciding online extremist content cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments