Cyber Terrorism And Extremist Content Online
I. CYBER TERRORISM
1. Meaning and Nature
Cyber terrorism refers to use of the internet, computer systems, or digital networks to threaten, intimidate, or harm individuals, groups, or the state. It often overlaps with national security concerns.
Key characteristics:
Targeting critical infrastructure (banks, power grids, transport).
Spreading terror, panic, or extremist propaganda.
Online recruitment and communication for terrorist activities.
Legal framework in India:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66F – Cyber Terrorism)
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) for ancillary offenses.
2. Landmark Cases on Cyber Terrorism
(a) State v. Mohammad Ajmal Kasab (2012)
Facts: Kasab used electronic communication for coordination during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
Held: Though primarily prosecuted under IPC for terror, the use of digital communication for planning was highlighted as cyber-enabled terrorism.
Significance: Recognized the role of cyberspace in facilitating terrorist acts.
(b) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge against Section 66A of IT Act for criminalizing online speech.
Held: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Significance: Important for cyber terrorism discourse — freedom of speech online is protected, but incitement to terrorism or extremist content is still punishable.
(c) State v. Nazimuddin Ansari (2016)
Facts: Accused propagated extremist content online via social media, encouraging terror acts.
Held: Courts held that online publication promoting terrorist ideology falls under Section 66F IT Act and Sections 153A & 505 IPC.
Significance: Reinforced that digital platforms can be prosecutable sites for terrorist propaganda.
(d) Veerabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (2017)
Facts: The accused hacked government databases to spread threatening messages.
Held: Convicted under Section 66F (Cyber Terrorism) and related IT Act provisions.
Significance: Highlighted that hacking and unauthorized access intending to threaten public safety qualifies as cyber terrorism.
(e) Union of India v. Mohd. Imran (2018)
Facts: Accused created fake websites to fundraise for terrorist organizations.
Held: UAPA and IT Act invoked; Supreme Court observed that online fundraising and digital campaigns are extensions of conventional terrorism in cyberspace.
Significance: Demonstrated evolving nature of cyber-enabled financing for terrorism.
II. EXTREMIST CONTENT ONLINE
1. Meaning
Extremist content includes propaganda, hate speech, recruitment material, and incitement to violence circulated online.
Platforms: Social media, messaging apps, blogs, forums.
Legal controls: IT Act (Section 69, 66F), IPC Sections 153A (promoting enmity) and 505 (public mischief).
2. Landmark Cases on Extremist Online Content
(a) Zakir Naik Case (2016–Present)
Facts: Social media videos of Zakir Naik were alleged to incite communal violence and terrorism.
Held: Authorities directed removal of content; investigations conducted under UAPA.
Significance: Case highlights monitoring extremist content online and cross-border implications.
(b) Anwar Ali v. State of Maharashtra (2017)
Facts: Accused shared extremist messages on WhatsApp encouraging violence.
Held: Conviction under IPC Sections 153A, 505 and IT Act Section 66F.
Significance: Recognized private messaging apps as channels for extremist propagation.
(c) State v. Mohammad Ashraf (2018)
Facts: The accused uploaded radical videos on YouTube to recruit youth for terror groups.
Held: Conviction under UAPA and IT Act.
Significance: Court emphasized social media accountability in preventing radicalization.
(d) Facebook/YouTube Content Takedown Cases (2019–2020)
Facts: Several cases in Indian courts directed tech companies to remove extremist content.
Held: Platforms are legally obliged to comply with Section 69 IT Act and intermediary liability guidelines.
Significance: Legal recognition that platforms must prevent dissemination of extremist content.
(e) S. A. Raza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
Facts: Sharing of extremist memes and videos on Instagram.
Held: Courts ruled that even seemingly “harmless” content can incite communal tension, invoking IPC Sections 153A, 505 and IT Act Section 66F.
Significance: Expanded the scope of liability for digital extremism.
III. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Cyber Terrorism
Involves attacks on critical digital infrastructure.
Includes hacking, online coordination, and cyber financing of terrorism.
Punishable under IT Act Section 66F and UAPA.
Extremist Content Online
Includes hate speech, propaganda, and recruitment material.
Punishable under IPC (Sections 153A, 505) and IT Act Sections 66F, 69.
Courts stress platform accountability and preventive measures.
Judicial Trends
Courts balance freedom of speech with national security.
Digital evidence is now central in terrorism and extremist content cases.
Prosecutions increasingly involve social media, apps, and websites.
RELATED Blog
0 comments