Online radicalisation by ideological preachers is a new challenge to India's internal security. Discuss the legal and institutional responses.

Online radicalisation happens when preachers use digital platforms to spread hatred and justify violence to a scattered audience they never meet. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has renewed its ban on the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), whose leader it calls a "fugitive terror preacher" [1]. The case shows that India responds mainly through preventive law, backed by institutional checks.

Why the challenge is new

• Reach across borders: a preacher living abroad can keep influencing followers in India while staying beyond arrest [1].
• Religion mixed with hatred: the grounds cited against IRF include inciting communal hatred, spreading separatism and helping absconding terrorists regroup [1].

Legal responses

• Banning the organisation: Section 3 of UAPA, 1967 lets the Centre declare an association unlawful by Gazette notification. This reaches its funds, premises and front organisations, not just one person [2].
• Punishing continued membership: Section 10 makes membership of a banned group a crime. In Arup Bhuyan (2023) the Supreme Court held that a person who knowingly stays a member after a ban is liable even without proof of violence [3].
• Constitutional basis: Article 19(4) allows limits on freedom of association to protect sovereignty, integrity and public order.

Institutional responses

• MHA: as the ministry in charge of internal security, it declares and renews bans. IRF appears on its list of unlawful associations [4].
• UAPA Tribunal: a single High Court judge must find "sufficient cause" within six months. A confirmed ban lasts five years, so it has to be reviewed periodically [2].
• NIA and state police: they investigate UAPA offences and enforce bans on the ground.

Gaps

• Hidden evidence: under the proviso to Section 3(2) the Centre can withhold facts, and under Section 3(3) a ban can take effect before any judge reviews it [2].
• Risk of overreach: there is no compensation for people acquitted under UAPA, and the NCRB keeps no data on UAPA cases against journalists [5].
• Ideas versus acts: bans hit organisations, but online content and preachers abroad also need takedown, extradition and counter-narrative tools.

India's response combines executive bans, confirmation by a judge and stricter liability for members. Going forward, the MHA could publish Tribunal orders with sensitive parts removed, report UAPA outcomes in detail and set up a scheme to compensate people wrongly prosecuted. Building digital counter-radicalisation with communities and platforms would also help. With these steps, India can protect its sovereignty while honouring the Article 19 balance between liberty and security.