Terror Funding and ISIS Support: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid

The case of Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid revolves around allegations of terror funding and support for ISIS, one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case clarifies the legal framework under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning association with terrorist organizations and financial support for terrorism.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid was guilty of promoting ISIS activities and whether her sentence should be reduced or enhanced based on the available evidence.

Background of the Case

The prosecution case was based on a complaint received on July 10, 2016, at Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod, Kerala, revealing that 14 individuals had left India to join ISIS in Afghanistan. ISIS, being a declared terrorist organization under the UAPA, was identified as a threat to India’s sovereignty and security.

During the investigation, the authorities arrested Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid on August 1, 2016, at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, while she was attempting to travel to Afghanistan with her child. The prosecution alleged that she was an active participant in the conspiracy, had raised funds to support ISIS, and had financially contributed to its activities.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Union of India)

The prosecution contended that:

• The accused was involved in a criminal conspiracy to support ISIS activities, along with her husband and other co-accused.
• She had actively raised funds for ISIS and transferred money to assist terrorist activities.
• There was clear evidence of her association with ISIS and her attempt to join the organization in Afghanistan.
• Her social media activity, communication records, and financial transactions proved her allegiance to ISIS.
• Her conviction under Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) and Section 38 of the UAPA (association with a terrorist organization) was justified.

Respondent’s Arguments (Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid)

The defense argued that:

• There was no direct evidence that she was personally involved in terrorist activities.
• The prosecution failed to prove that she had sent money to ISIS for furthering terrorist acts.
• The funds she received were for personal use and not for promoting terrorism.
• Her association with ISIS was due to her husband’s influence and did not amount to criminal liability.
• She was a victim of wrongful prosecution and should be acquitted.

Lower Court’s Decision

The Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam, convicted Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid under:

• Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy
• Section 125 IPC – Waging war against an Asiatic power in alliance with India
• Sections 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA – Association with a terrorist organization, support to a terrorist organization, and raising funds for terrorism

She was sentenced to:

• Three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 120B IPC
• Seven years rigorous imprisonment under each UAPA section
• A fine of Rs. 25,000, failing which she would undergo an additional three months of imprisonment

High Court’s Decision

The Kerala High Court reduced her conviction, setting aside her punishment under:

• Section 125 IPC – The court found no evidence of her waging war against an Asiatic power.
• Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA – The court ruled that she had not directly funded terrorist activities.

However, the High Court upheld her conviction under:

• Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy)
• Section 38 of UAPA (association with a terrorist organization)

The High Court reduced her sentence from seven years to:

• One year under IPC 120B
• Three years under UAPA Section 38

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and previous rulings and made the following key observations:

• The confiscated materials, including videos and speeches promoting ISIS ideology, indicated her active support for the organization.
• Her attempt to travel to Afghanistan at the behest of her husband, an ISIS operative, further confirmed her intent.
• The High Court was incorrect in reducing her sentence purely on sympathetic grounds.
• The distinction between Section 38 (association with a terrorist organization) and Section 39 (support to a terrorist organization) was significant, and the prosecution had failed to prove that she actively arranged or managed ISIS meetings.

Key Ruling and Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The conviction under Section 120B IPC and Section 38 UAPA was upheld.
• The acquittal under Section 125 IPC and Sections 39 and 40 UAPA was also upheld.
• The reduction of sentence by the High Court was incorrect, and the original punishment of seven years was reinstated.

The Court held:

“The intensity of her participation and involvement were clearly made out. There was no room for invoking sympathetic considerations. The quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court was absolutely correct and adequate.”

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for counter-terrorism laws in India:

• Strict Application of UAPA: Courts must ensure that those involved in terror activities face the full force of the law.
• Traveling for Terror Activities: Even attempting to leave India to join terrorist organizations is punishable.
• No Leniency in Sentencing: Sympathy should not override national security concerns.
• Prosecution’s Burden: Authorities must provide clear evidence of financial and logistical support to convict under Sections 39 and 40 of UAPA.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces India’s tough stance against terrorism and ensures that those associated with terror groups face the necessary legal consequences.

Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: Yasmeen Mohammad Zahid.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: Kasaragod, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 02-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Yasmeen Mohammad Zah Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category