The Delhi High Court has emphasised that speeches intended to manipulate and recruit innocent individuals for illegal activities against the nation cannot be overlooked, even in the absence of a specific terrorist act. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma as they dismissed the appeal of Mohd Abdul Rehman, an alleged associate of Al-Qaeda's Indian subcontinent branch. Rehman had challenged his conviction and the seven-year-five-month jail sentence handed down by a trial court under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

"Speeches which are given to brainwash innocent youth coupled with attempts to recruit them for committing unlawful and illegal acts against the country cannot be completely washed away on the ground that no specific terrorist act has been committed," it said.

The appellant contended that while he was convicted for engaging in preparatory activities and recruiting individuals for terrorist acts, there was no concrete evidence to prove he had committed such acts.

The Delhi High Court, however, noted that the definition of a "terrorist act" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is broad enough to encompass "conspiring with terrorist organisations and associating with individuals supporting such organisations." The court clarified that identifying or proving the existence of a specific terrorist act is not necessary for imposing punishment under the law.

Upholding the trial court's conviction, the high court highlighted evidence establishing the appellant’s close association with other accused individuals who were part of a larger network supporting terrorist activities.

The network was alleged to be involved in a range of activities, including delivering inflammatory speeches, disseminating propaganda materials, establishing links with Pakistan-based organisations, travelling to Pakistan for secret meetings, recruiting individuals for terrorist activities, and raising funds to support these efforts. Additionally, the group was accused of engaging in activities aimed at fostering hatred against the country and its political leadership.

"In conspiracies of this nature specific covert acts would not be required but secretive and clandestine support to declared terrorist organisations would also be sufficient. The evidence and the testimonies which have been recorded in the present case clearly disclose association with terrorist organisations for the commission of conspiracy for committing a terrorist act.. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed," the bench ruled.

The court observed that the planning and preparation for executing terrorist acts could span several years, and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is designed to address such preparatory activities, even in the absence of a specific identified terrorist act.

It further noted that organisations like Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent operate in an extremely clandestine manner, often leaving no trace of evidence, which is a well-recognised fact.

In February 2023, the trial court convicted the appellant and other accused individuals of conspiracy to prepare for the commission of terrorist acts. The trial court's decision was based on evidence pointing to a conspiracy, including illegal travel to Pakistan, inflammatory speeches and the creation of multiple passports using forged and fabricated documents.

The state argued that the materials presented in the case demonstrated the appellant's ideology, which promoted violence against the country and its leadership, including the Prime Minister.