Basic args- Issue 1
UAPA-
3. Declaration of an association as unlawful
7. Power to prohibit the use of funds of an unlawful association.
10. Penalty for being member of an unlawful association
11. Penalty for dealing with funds of an unlawful association.
13. Punishment for unlawful activities.
14. Offences to be cognizable.
15. Terrorist act.
16. Punishment for terrorist act.
17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.
18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.
18A. Punishment for organising of terrorist camps.
18B. Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act.
19. Punishment for harbouring, etc.
20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation.
21. Punishment for holding proceeds of terrorism.
23. Enhanced penalties
38. Offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation
39. Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.
40. Offence of raising fund for a terrorist organisation.
43. Officers competent to investigate offence under Chapters IV and VI.
43A. Power to arrest, search, etc.
43B. Procedure of arrest, seizure, etc.
43C. Application of provisions of Code.
43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.
43E. Presumption as to offence under section 15.
46. Admissibility of evidence collected through the interception of communications
49. Protection of action taken in good faith.
51A. Certain powers of the Central Government
BNS-
14. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.
17. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law
19. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
45. Abetment of a thing.
46. Abettor. 47. Abetment in India of offences outside India.
48. Abetment outside India for offence in India.
50. Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of
abettor.
52. Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done.
53. Liability of abettor for an effect caused by act abetted different from that intended by abettor.
55. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life
57. Abetting commission of offence by public or by more than ten persons.
61. Criminal conspiracy.
101. Murder.
103. Punishment for murder
111. Organised crime.
113. Terrorist act.
147. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against Government of
India.
148. Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 147.
149. Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against Government of India.
150. Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war
152. Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India
197. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration
Constitution
Article 19(1)(a) - free speech
Article 19(2) -reasonable restrictions
UN Security Council Resolutions on Counter-Terrorism (UNSC Res. 1373, 1624) - states duty to
criminalise facilitation of terrorism.
Caselaws
PUCL v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping Case, 1997)
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India-free sppech
Petitioner
Posts and videos constitute protected freedom of speech not abetment.
No proof she intended to facilitate terrorism-abscence of mensrea, Presence of her videos on a
USB does not conclusively say she had a part in it
Drone clips and maps were derived from publicly available sources, not secret intelligence.
Devices seized without warrant, forced biometric access, and denial of counsel taint digital
evidence-not fair trial
Whether the digital posts and videos constitute protected journalistic expression under
constitutional guarantees of free speech.
Whether public-domain information (drone clips, maps, forwards) can legally amount to
actionable facilitation of terrorism.(nexus b/w shibons act and terrorism)
Whether procedural violations in search, seizure, and extraction of devices render digital
evidence inadmissible.
Respondents
Targeted drone footage, convoy route maps, and location-tagged posts - aiding terrorists-Four
of her videos were recovered on an attacker’s USB
Timing of posts-Subscriber-only (selective discussions), anonymous Telegram moderation of
attackers linkeed grps, and large dark-web crypto donations
Army convoys and activities monitored and reported-sus
Whether Ms. Shibon’s posts and drone footage(USB ) amount to abetment of terrorism
under UAPA/BNS.-Facilitation through telegram apps etc
digital facilitation of terrorism covered under UAPA BNS& crypto donations and
encrypted communication evidence demonstrate mens rea
Whether national security considerations justify reasonable restrictions on free speech
in this case.