India weaponizing terror laws to malign Muslims under digital pretexts
New Delhi: Rights observers say India is once again using sweeping terror laws and loosely framed allegations to malign Muslims and criminalize online expression under the pretext of national security, as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) chargesheeted five people for alleged “online radicalisation” through social media.
According to Kashmir Media Service, the NIA filed a chargesheet before a special court in Ahmedabad against five Muslims—Mohammad Fardeen, Kureshi Sefulla, Mohammad Faique, Zeeshan Ali, and Shama Parveen—accusing them of propagating the ideology of a banned organizations. The agency invoked harsh provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Arms Act, despite the case primarily revolving around online posts and digital activity.
The NIA claimed the accused shared “provocative” videos, audios, photos, and written content on social media platforms, alleging that such material amounted to support for extremist ideology.
However, civil liberties groups argue that India has increasingly blurred the line between expression and violence, using social media activity as grounds for branding individuals as terrorists.
Legal analysts note that the chargesheet relies heavily on interpretation of online posts, likes, comments, and digital associations—methods that have become routine tools for India’s investigating agencies to justify arrests while trials stretch for years. “In most such cases, the process itself becomes the punishment,” a rights lawyer said, pointing to India’s abysmally low conviction rates under UAPA.
The NIA alleged that Mohammad Faique of Delhi played a “pivotal role” by sharing posts related to jihad, Ghazwa-e-Hind, and criticism of the Indian state, while others were accused of amplifying content or participating in online groups. Observers say such broad accusations allow authorities to criminalize political, religious, or ideological discourse without proving any act of violence.
The agency further claimed recovery of digital material and weapons from some of the accused, a pattern frequently cited by rights groups who say recoveries are often unverifiable and used to strengthen otherwise weak cases. In the case of Shama Parveen, the NIA alleged contacts with a Pakistani national and possession of banned literature—allegations critics say are routinely used to add a “foreign link” narrative to cases involving Muslims.
Human rights defenders say the chargesheet fits a larger pattern in India, particularly visible in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where thousands have been arrested under similar laws for speech, writing, association, or online activity, while convictions remain negligible.
They warn that by equating online expression with terrorism, India is systematically maligning individuals particularly Muslims under different pretexts to silence dissent, intimidate minorities, and project an exaggerated security narrative, while eroding basic principles of justice, free expression, and due process.
