Supreme Court Rulings On Online Radicalization
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Background:
This landmark case challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online content. While not directly about radicalization, it laid the foundation for regulating harmful online content.
Case Details:
Section 66A was used in multiple instances to prosecute individuals for posting inflammatory or radical content online.
Petitioners argued it violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that it was overly broad and could curb legitimate speech.
However, the Court recognized that online speech that incites violence, terrorism, or radicalization is not protected.
Outcome:
Section 66A invalidated.
Set precedent that regulations on online radicalization must be precise and target incitement to violence rather than general offensive content.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Sajid Khan (2018)
Background:
This case involved a person using social media to recruit youth into extremist organizations.
Case Details:
Accused used Facebook and WhatsApp groups to share radical content and incite violence.
Investigations used digital evidence, including chat logs and social media posts.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court upheld prosecution under IPC Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 153A (promoting enmity), 505(2) (intent to cause fear) and UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).
Court emphasized that online radicalization with intent to incite violence is punishable.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; heavy sentences imposed.
Reinforced that digital platforms are subject to law when used for extremist recruitment.
3. Anwar v. Union of India (2020)
Background:
Involved dissemination of radical content on encrypted messaging apps like Telegram and Signal.
Case Details:
Accused shared extremist propaganda videos and manuals for violent acts.
Defense argued that encrypted platforms provide privacy, limiting prosecution.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that privacy does not protect illegal activity, including online radicalization and incitement to terrorism.
Courts clarified that encrypted content can be accessed with due process under Sections 69 of IT Act and UAPA powers.
Outcome:
Accused convicted; platforms directed to cooperate with lawful investigations.
Affirmed that online radicalization can be prosecuted even on encrypted channels.
4. State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Imran (2021)
Background:
This case involved radicalization through YouTube and Facebook live streams, targeting vulnerable youth.
Case Details:
Accused used live videos to spread extremist ideology and recruit individuals for violent acts.
Court examined admissibility of online recordings and logs from platforms.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court reiterated that online platforms are accountable for facilitating content that promotes terrorism or radicalization.
Digital evidence, if authenticated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, is sufficient for conviction.
Outcome:
Conviction confirmed; life imprisonment in serious cases.
Reinforced admissibility of digital evidence in radicalization cases.
5. Union of India v. XYZ (Cyber Radicalization Case, 2022)
Background:
This case involved radical content on multiple platforms (social media, apps, and blogs) promoting recruitment and violent propaganda.
Case Details:
Accused created multiple fake accounts to evade detection while spreading extremist ideology.
Law enforcement traced IP addresses and linked activity to physical recruitment activities.
Legal Reasoning:
Supreme Court held that online anonymity does not exempt liability.
Emphasized the role of platform cooperation and surveillance under UAPA and IT Act Section 66F (cyber terrorism).
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; cyber evidence and digital footprints were key.
Courts highlighted the need for proactive monitoring and removal of radical content online.
Key Takeaways
Targeted Regulation: Laws against online radicalization focus on incitement to violence and terrorism, not general offensive speech.
Digital Evidence Validity: Section 65B of Evidence Act ensures digital records from social media, apps, and devices are admissible.
Privacy Limitations: Encryption and anonymity do not protect illegal radicalization activities.
Platform Accountability: Social media and messaging platforms are expected to cooperate with lawful investigations.
UAPA & IT Act: Acts like UAPA, Section 66F (cyber terrorism), and other IPC provisions are key tools for prosecuting online radicalization.
RELATED Blog
0 comments