UAPA: Madras High Court sets aside NIA court order that relied on Wikipedia to reject Muslim preacher's discharge plea

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of a special NIA court that had relied on Wikipedia to reject a Muslim preacher's discharge plea in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) [Ziyavudeen Baqavi v UoI]..In a judgement passed on April 13, a bench of Justices M Sundar and M Nirmal Kumar said that the Supreme Court had clearly put a caveat caution against courts using 'Wikipedia' in deciding legal disputes.The High 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 bench 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." "Therefore, it is clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court has put in a caveat and caution against use of such sources (Wikipedia) in legal dispute resolution. Acer India and Hewlett Packard / Lenevo principles make it clear that on this score, the trial Court fell in error i.e., fell in error in relying on Wikipedia and, therefore, the matter has to go back to trial Court to consider the matter afresh de hors Wikipedia keeping in mind the caveat put in place by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Acer India as well as Hewlett Packard / Lenevo cases," the High Court said. .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. "With regard to reliance on Wikipedia, the submission of learned counsel is indisputable as paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the trial Court explicitly relies on Wikipedia for a definition/description to presume and assume that the objective and aim of a particular entity is as set out therein. We refrain from setting out the same as categoric and certain sole reliance on Wikipedia is indisputable. In this view of the matter, learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say as it is a matter of record and part of the case file before us," the High Court said..Advocate I Abdul Basith appeared for the appellant Ziyavudeen Baqavi.Special Public Prosecutor R Karthikeyan appeared for the respondent Union government. .[Read Judgment]