Section 125 of IPC
TEXT: Waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with the Government of India -Whoever wages war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
IN PRACTICE: Most lawyers have never dealt with this section of IPC because it is one of the most rarely used sections of the IPC. Interestingly, it was used a fortnight ago (before Mehdi's arrest) against Arif Majeed, a Mumbai-based youth who was arrested by NIA when he returned from ISIS-controlled territories in Iraq and Sudan, on Nov 29.
Sec 125 does not specify what kind of act overt or covert or incitement amounts to waging war. The investigators will have to prove which particular action or actions by Biswas amounts to waging war, or abets a war. Resembles 124A, the Sedition Act, in this aspect.
EXPERT VIEW
If Mehdi's posts were only an ex pression of opinion, it cannot at tract this serious office. Having `kafir' as a thought is not a criminal offence. But if his tweets were instructing someone to pick up arms kept in a particular location and deliver them elsewhere, for instance, this Section can be applied.Just sympathy or moral support cannot be criminalized.
--R NITIN, Bengaluru-based criminal lawyer It is a serious section because it invites life imprisonment.
18 and 39 of the UAPA, 1967
BACKGROUND: The Central Act was originally meant to deal with organized crime; not an anti-terror legislation. The `terrorism' provision was added through amendments in 2004 and 2008, after TADA and POTA were repealed.
Under the Definitions (2, m) the Act defines terrorist organisations thus: "means an organization listed in the Schedule or an organization operating under the same name as an organization so listed." In the Schedule, organisations such as SIMI, IM, CPI (Maoist) are listed and the list is constantly revised by the Union Home Ministry. By this definition, ISIS is not notified by the Government of India in its list of terrorist organisations in India. The National Investigation Agency's website also does not mention ISIS as a banned organization.
TEXT of Sec 18, UAPA
Punishment for conspiracy, etc: Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets, advices or incites or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
EXPERT VIEW
A conspiracy cannot be hatched by a single person. 120B of IPC, dealing with criminal conspiracy, defines conspiracy as an act which two or more persons agree to do.By all accounts so far, Mehdi Masroor Biswas managed a twitter account; he did that alone and was not recruited by anyone or group to do so.By this logic, invoking Sec 18 in the case can be questioned.
TEXT of Sec 39, UAPA
Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization.
EXPERT VIEW
In Mehdi's case, only if in his tweets (or elsewhere), he has actually invited support from people for ISIS's terror activities, can Sec. 39 be raised against him.Criminal lawyer R Nitin said: "This section could apply to Mehdi's case because it does not say he should have done it (invite, arrange, manage support etc) at the behest of the organization. So, even if he did it independently, he could be liable."
The punishment under this provision is 10 years, but he can be released with a fine. This dilutes the seriousness of the legislation, say experts
TEXT of 66F of IT Act
Punishment for cyber terrorism (2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
EXPERT VIEW
Smarika Kumar, who specialises in media law with the Alternative Lawyers' Forum, said: "There is no scope of application of Sec 66F of the IT Act unless he had fraudulently accessedhacked into someone else's social media accounts or government databases." Lawyer R Nitin, however, said that 66F could apply to Mehdi's case. He pointed out sub-section 2, under which anyone committing cyber terrorism is punishable with imprisonment.
