Anash Ahamed, a 21-year-old freelance video jockey from Podhanur of Coimbatore, was in for a shock when the police showed up on his doorstep on September 5 to arrest him after slapping him with charges of cyber terrorism. The Coimbatore city police arrested Anash, and he was remanded in judicial custody and lodged at the Coimbatore Central Prison. After more than 50 days of incarceration, he was granted bail by the Madras High Court on October 30. All for a video that he had done for a YouTube channel titled ‘Hijab Challenge’.
“This heavy-handed action reflects the grim reality Muslims in India and Tamil Nadu are facing today," his advocate, Pulianthope Mohan, said.
The video in question was uploaded on the YouTube channel Kaswa TV in the first week of September 2024, and it has been taken down by the channel now. In the programme, the host invited volunteers from the public to wear a hijab and share their experiences. Filmed at Race Course of Coimbatore, a prime locality in the city, where members of Kaswa TV approached young women, introduced themselves, and asked if they would be willing to wear the hijab to see how they felt and looked in the attire. Photos and videos were taken both before and after they wore the hijab.
After coming across this video, the district organiser of right-wing outfit Bharat Sena, S Kumaresan, filed a complaint alleging that the video led to a comment thread on Facebook, where some users expressed concerns that the program’s approach might incite tension between religious communities. He claimed that numerous comments were made, sparking a debate on the platform. He said the video was controversial and tempting to create enmity between two communal groups. He sought police action against Anash.
Based on this complaint, Anash was booked under sections 352, 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) and 66F (punishment for cyber terrorism) of the Information Technology (IT) Act and arrested. After two of his bail petitions were denied by the Principal District and Sessions Court in Coimbatore, he approached the Madras High Court.
His counsel, Mohan, argued that only volunteers from the public took part in the video and no one was compelled to take part. He further contended that there was no intention to create controversy among any communities. He said that no complaint was filed by any specific individual who appeared in the video or by anyone who was directly affected by the video. Justice P Dhanabal granted bail considering that there was no previous case pending against the petitioner and taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by Anash.
Speaking to TNM, Mohan said that the invocation of Section 66F of the IT Act was unjustified, as the circumstances of the case did not meet the requirements for this offence, which typically involves cyber terrorism or activities threatening national security. “The video clearly comes under the ambit of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which gives us the right to propagate our religion,” he added.
Section 66F pertains to punishment for cyber terrorism and criminalises acts that threaten the sovereignty, integrity, security, or friendly relations of India, particularly if they involve the use of computers or other digital devices. The section applies when a person uses a computer or network with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror among people or any section of people. It also includes actions that disrupt essential services or cause widespread fear, affecting the functioning of critical information infrastructure and unauthorised access to restricted information, or accessing protected data with malicious intent. If proven, Section 66F violations can lead to imprisonment for life.
“The complaint seems to have stemmed from an online argument, possibly just a Facebook fight. Applying Section 66F here feels like an overreach by the police,” Mohan said, adding that none of the women allegedly affected filed a complaint, and no public unrest or protests followed the video’s release.
“The law is clear on what Section 66F covers—it’s meant to protect national integrity from serious threats, not regulate online discussions. In a secular state like Tamil Nadu, the government has a responsibility to ensure authorities don’t misuse the law to target individuals unjustly.”
Srinivas Kodali, a hacktivist and researcher working on digitisation, reiterated this point by saying, “For Section 66F to apply, there should be some form of attack on the integrity of India or a serious threat to national security. Unfortunately, we’re seeing a recurring misuse of IT Act provisions, especially since Section 66A was struck down by the Supreme Court. Now, police are using other provisions under Section 66 in its place, often to silence dissent or control narratives on social media.”
Section 66A of the IT Act was a provision that criminalised sending offensive or menacing messages through electronic communication, including emails and social media posts. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down this section as unconstitutional, stating that it was vague and had undefined expressions.
Apar Gupta, advocate and co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), added, “This case doesn’t align with the definition or core elements of cyber terrorism under Section 66F. Even at the initial stage, if the material in question were scrutinised against the complaint, it wouldn’t meet the prima facie requirements for cyber terrorism. The parameters of what constitutes cyber terrorism are simply not met here.”
He further noted, “There’s a broader rule of law issue here, where online content is being prosecuted based on public alarm or outrage rather than strictly legal grounds. This is a deeper problem with how vaguely police apply the law and how trial courts often deny bail, pushing cases to trial prematurely. What we need is criminal justice reform, including a dedicated prosecutor's office that examines complaints before escalating them to an FIR.”
Noted human rights activist and advocate Henri Tiphagne said, “There should be no offence at all, since the women in the case have not come forth with any complaint. I see a communal angle brought into the whole thing by the complainant, but what is more shocking is that the police slapped cyber terrorism charges in this case. Who is to compensate this man for 50 days of incarceration? I want to ask Chief Minister Stalin if this is the condition of freedom of expression in the state, where you talk so much about social justice.”