Madras High Court

Madras High Court overturns NIA court's decision to reject Muslim preacher's discharge plea based on Wikipedia reference, citing UAPA

Madras High Court overturns NIA court's decision to reject Muslim preacher's discharge plea based on Wikipedia reference, citing UAPA

The Madras High Court recently passed a judgement in the case of Ziyavudeen Baqavi v UoI, wherein a bench of Justices M Sundar and M Nirmal Kumar set aside the order of a special NIA court that had rejected a Muslim preacher’s discharge plea in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The NIA court had relied on Wikipedia to reject the plea.

The High Court cited previous judgements of the Supreme Court wherein it had held that user based resources such as Wikipedia were not reliable and, therefore, courts cannot use such resources for legal dispute resolution. The Court, therefore, set aside the NIA court’s order and asked the lower court judge to decide upon the discharge plea afresh, this time, based on witness statements and legal evidence.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by one Ziyavudeen Baqavi arrested and charged by the NIA under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for allegedly browsing and sharing posts from the Facebook page of a “fundamentalist” Islamic organisation.

Baqavi’s counsel argued that mere sharing of posts did not constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(b) of UAPA. Besides, he argued that the NIA Court had ignored all evidence on record, and solely relied on Wikipedia’s definition of the said organisation to hold that an offence under UAPA was made out in the case. The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s submissions.

Advocate I Abdul Basith appeared for the appellant Ziyavudeen Baqavi and Special Public Prosecutor R Karthikeyan appeared for the respondent Union government. The High Court, in its judgement, put a caveat caution against courts using ‘Wikipedia’ in deciding legal disputes and asked the lower court judge to consider the matter afresh de hors Wikipedia keeping in mind the caveat put in place by the Supreme Court in Acer India as well as Hewlett Packard / Lenevo cases.

Case: Ziyavudeen Baqavi vs Union of India
Counsel for Applicant: Adv. I.Abdul Basith
Counsel for Opposite Party: Adv. R.Karthikeyan
Order Date: 13.04.2023 
WhatsApp Channel

Nyaysha on WhatsApp

Judgments, jobs and legal analysis — the day in law, delivered straight to your WhatsApp. One tap to follow, leave anytime.

We use cookies to improve your experience. Read our cookie policy.