Participation In Seminars No Basis For UAPA Charge: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling regarding the interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act ( UAPA ), the Bombay High Court has granted bail to three individuals accused in a case involving the Popular Front of India (PFI). Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi emphasized that mere participation in seminars or political training does not constitute a "terrorist act" under the stringent provisions of the UAPA , especially in the absence of evidence indicating overt violence or attempts to incite terrorism.

Case Background

The appellants—Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim (also known as Irfan Milli), Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, and Abdul Hadi Abdul Rauf Momin—were arrested in September 2022 following FIRs filed by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in Aurangabad. The charges stemmed from allegations that the organization had conducted training camps and speeches propagating anti-government sentiment. At the time of their arrest, the PFI had not yet been declared an unlawful association by the Central Government. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in training youths to fight the government, citing documentation titled "India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India."

After their bail applications were rejected by the trial court, the appellants moved the High Court, invoking the principle of parity with co-accused who had already been granted relief, and highlighting the significant delay in the trial proceedings.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the appellants argued that no incriminating material linking the accused to specific acts of terrorism was recovered. They asserted that merely possessing political literature or participating in karate training did not, by law, fall under the ambit of the UAPA ’s definition of a "terrorist act." Furthermore, they contended that since the PFI was not a banned organization at the time of the alleged activities, the charges under UAPA should fail. By relying on apex court precedents, they argued that the prosecution's slow pace—having examined only five out of 145 witnesses—amounted to an infringement of the appellants' right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conversely, the State argued that national security is of paramount importance. The prosecution maintained that the material seized, including evidence of weapons and radical ideologies, was sufficient to prima facie implicate the applicants. They argued that the appellants were key organizers of anti-national activities and that their release would risk evidence tampering.

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Court meticulously analyzed the definition of "terrorist acts" under the UAPA , distinguishing between ideological discourse and active involvement in terrorist violence. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vernon v. State of Maharashtra , the Court held that "mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b)."

The Court further referenced Athar Parwez v. Union of India , noting that because the PFI was not a "terrorist organization" at the time of the FIR, holding the accused based on these associations did not meet the prima facie thresholds required under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA to restrict bail.

Key Observations

The judgment offers critical clarity on the limits of preventive detention in terrorism cases:

• "Merely because appellants participated in the meetings, seminars or physical training of karate etc., prima facie, it cannot be said that they have indulged in any terrorist act."
• "In absence of allegations of any overt act of violence and terrorist activities, mere participation in seminars/camps, prima facie, would not amount to terrorist act."
• "Long incarceration and unlikely likelihood of trial being completed in near future has also been taken as a ground for exercising its constitutional role by the Constitutional Courts to grant bail."

Court's Decision

Allowing the appeals, the Bombay High Court directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to stringent conditions set by the Special Court. Beyond the legal merits concerning the UAPA charges, the Court emphasized that a trial with 145 witnesses where only five have been examined in over two years poses a clear violation of personal liberty, necessitating judicial intervention to ensure that the accused’s right to a reasonable trial duration is upheld under the Constitution.