[1:11 Pm, 10/9/2025] Durga—: Prosecution Of Cyber Terrorism And Online Radicalization
Prosecution of Cyber Terrorism and Online Radicalization
Cyber terrorism refers to terrorist activities carried out using digital means, such as hacking, spreading propaganda, or disrupting critical infrastructure. Online radicalization involves using the internet to recruit, indoctrinate, or mobilize individuals toward violent extremism.
Legal Framework in India
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 121A: Conspiracy to commit offences against the State
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between groups
Section 505: Statements conducive to public mischief
Information Technology Act, 2000:
Section 66F: Cyber terrorism
Section 69: Interception of information for security purposes
Section 66: Hacking and identity theft
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967:
Used to prosecute terrorist activities, including online radicalization
Designation of terrorist organizations
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 91: Summons for electronic records
Section 165A: Disclosure of information by intermediaries
Enforcement and Investigation Agencies:
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Cyber Crime Cells of state police
Intelligence agencies
Key Objectives:
Prevent recruitment and radicalization online
Track and prosecute cyber-terrorist networks
Secure critical infrastructure from cyber attacks
Case Law Analysis
Here are six landmark cases demonstrating prosecution of cyber terrorism and online radicalization:
Case 1: Kartikeya Singh v. State (2012, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Accused was spreading extremist propaganda via social media, inciting violence against a community.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IPC Sections 153A and 505 and IT Act Sections 66F.
Court emphasized that online platforms can be used to instigate communal violence.
Significance:
Early recognition of cyber space as a medium for radicalization and its prosecution under existing laws.
Case 2: State v. Mohammed Imran & Ors (2015, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
Accused were part of a network recruiting youth for extremist organizations via encrypted messaging apps.
Court Decision:
UAPA charges were invoked, along with IT Act provisions for digital communications.
Electronic evidence, including chat logs, was held admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Significance:
Set precedent for digital communications as admissible evidence in online radicalization cases.
Case 3: National Investigation Agency v. Zia-ur-Rehman (2017, NIA Special Court, Mumbai)
Facts:
Accused used online platforms to fundraise and provide logistics for terrorist acts.
Court Decision:
Convicted under UAPA and IT Act Sections 66F & 69.
Evidence included bank transfer records, emails, and social media interactions.
Significance:
Demonstrated integration of financial and cyber evidence in prosecuting online terrorism support networks.
Case 4: State v. Ankit Sharma (2018, Delhi Cyber Crime Court)
Facts:
Accused hacked a government website and posted threatening messages encouraging terrorist attacks.
Court Decision:
Convicted under IT Act Sections 66F, 66, and IPC 506 (criminal intimidation).
Digital forensics confirmed IP addresses and server logs linking the accused.
Significance:
Highlighted technical cyber evidence, like server logs, as critical in proving cyber terrorism.
Case 5: National Investigation Agency v. Aftab & Others (2019, NIA Special Court, Hyderabad)
Facts:
Accused radicalized minors via online forums, pushing them to join banned terrorist organizations.
Court Decision:
Convictions under UAPA and Sections 66F & 67 of IT Act.
Online chats, videos, and deleted messages were recovered using digital forensic techniques.
Significance:
Reinforced prosecution strategies against online radicalization targeting vulnerable populations.
Case 6: State of Maharashtra v. Rahman & Others (2021, Bombay High Court)
Facts:
Accused involved in cyber-attacks against critical infrastructure and spreading radical content online.
Court Decision:
IT Act Section 66F (cyber terrorism) invoked along with UAPA for terrorist intent.
Conviction relied heavily on network tracing and server logs.
Significance:
Emphasized the importance of digital forensics in cyber terrorism cases, linking actions to intent and planning.
Key Lessons from These Cases
IT Act Section 66F is Central: Used specifically for cyber terrorism prosecution.
Digital Evidence Admissibility: Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act allows emails, chat logs, and server records as admissible evidence.
UAPA for Terrorist Links: Online radicalization cases are treated as terrorism offenses.
Technical Expertise is Critical: Digital forensics, server logs, and encrypted communication tracing are often decisive.
Online Radicalization is Proactively Prosecuted: Courts recognize recruitment, propaganda, and fundraising online as criminal acts.
Multi-Agency Coordination: Cyber cells, NIA, and intelligence agencies are integral in evidence
RELATED Blog
0 comments