Supporting ISIS ideology doesn’t amount to waging war against Asiatic ally of India: Kerala High Court says!

Do not know what measures ones freedom of speech and expression in the country as it now poses doubt whether FoE and FoS are decided based on a person’s religion and secularism.

The reason FOS topic was raised because recently we have seen many incidents where abusing the country, working against National interest are more so declared as ones freedom of speech while raising concerns over terrorists, naxals and anti nationals elements in the country accounts to violation of FoS.While many who work for country’s security are often landed in jail, those who work for Maoists and terrorists plotting the assassination of Prime Minister get bail. So, it puts ones mind into confusion whether the country is actually protecting the terrorists?

Couple days back, the Kerala High Court gave a verdict on a lady who was accused of supporting ISIS and helping their cause providing financial assistance in which it said  “Supporting an ideology of a banned organization of course is different from waging a war or attempting to wage a war or abetting to wage a war”.


The case was taken up by Kerala High Court after a lady called Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid, was arrested by police and NIA in Delhi Airport Aug 1, 2016, while she was apparently trying to flee the country to join the ISIS terrorists organisation.

She was charged under the Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with raging war against an Asiatic power with which our country and government has alliance with. This section if proved can lead to life imprisonment as it deals with the country’s diplomatic relation.

National Investigation Agency(NIA) took over the investigation and found that fifteen persons had left the country. It was also found that from 2015 onwards, all these persons were regularly meeting for classes about Jihad. According to the NIA, Abdul Rashid was the lynch-pin of the conspiracy. He was made the first accused, and Yasmeen, who was stated to be Rashid’s second wife, was made the second accused. Thirteen others were made accused 3 to 15. However, all the accused except Yasmeen had left the country, and the case proceeded against her alone as the second accused.

The lady Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid was finally proved guilty of supporting and finding ISIS terror organisation and was convicted under Sections 120B, 125 IPC and Sections 38,39 and 40 of UAPA.

But the Kerala High Court in its verdict put a statement saying “Supporting an ideology of a banned organization, of course, is different from waging a war or attempting to wage a war or abetting to wage a war” which was indeed a surprise.

The court also said  “Though there is evidence to prove that she had attended classes of Jihad propagating IS ideology by A1, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that she had taken any steps to wage a war or attempted to or abetted waging of such war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with or at peace with Government of India. So conviction of the appellant under Section 125 cannot be sustained without any such material.”, the Court said. Live Law Report

But the same court which said supporting an ideology has no implication, had given a total different verdict on Sabarimala protest. It also said giving bail to protestors will send wrong precedent to the society.

Take a look!


So, when I questioned whether the limits of FoE and FoS is decided depending on religion, this is what I meant.

Now it is for the people to decide and judge!!!

Power Punch


Disclaimer: The Postcard News or the Writer no way is questioning the courts or the verdict, but just presenting the two verdicts in two different case with no intention of discrediting the judiciary. 



Related Articles