The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that distributing material intended to alienate residents from India can lead to charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court upheld the framing of charges against two individuals linked to a banned organization, establishing that preliminary evidence of a conspiracy is sufficient to proceed with legal action.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has clarified the legal threshold for framing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as UAPA. In a recent order, a division bench comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Sanjay Parihar ruled that distributing posters designed to foster disaffection against the nation is a serious offense that justifies legal proceedings under the act.
The court's decision specifically addressed the cases of two appellants, Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohammad Manan Dar, who had challenged the lower court’s decision to frame charges against them. The appellants argued that the prosecution lacked admissible evidence beyond alleged confessional statements. However, the High Court bench rejected this contention, concluding that the prosecution had presented sufficient material to establish a prima facie case—a preliminary finding that suggests there is enough evidence to move forward to a full trial.
Evidence cited in the case went beyond mere statements. The court noted that investigators provided technical and digital evidence, including WhatsApp communications, mobile location data, and forensic analysis of mobile devices. The case also involved the recovery of a photograph of a deceased member of the banned outfit The Resistance Front (TRF) on one of the devices. Furthermore, the court highlighted that one of the accused failed to provide a credible explanation regarding the source of ₹1 lakh in cash recovered during the investigation.
The High Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the judiciary is not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the final evidence. Instead, the focus is on determining whether there is enough information to warrant a trial. By confirming that links to handlers and alleged activities aimed at destabilizing the region fall within the ambit of UAPA, the court reinforced the legal framework used to address national security concerns in the region.
This ruling clarifies that attempting to incite disaffection through such materials is treated as a component of broader conspiracy and fundraising activities for banned organizations under the UAPA. The court specified that these observations are tentative and are meant to guide the current stage of proceedings, without prejudicing the trial court's eventual final verdict. The next steps for the parties involved will be the formal trial, where the evidence presented will be subject to a full judicial examination.