The court found that the convict was highly radicalized through ISIS ideology and that he had been spreading ISIS ideology through social media for several years.
Justice PG Ajithkumar noted that while the ITP Act does not define the word "procure", Section 5 of the Act penalises "procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution".
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, observed that issuing poorly printed bills/receipts constitutes "deficiency of service" and "unfair trade practice" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The sloganeering advocates managed to halt hearings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and magistrate Viveeja Sethumohan recorded the events in her courtroom in an order.
One of the factors cited by Judge K Soman to impose the severe penalties was the alleged involvement of the accused in another child sexual abuse case, where the victim was a 10-year-old child from Delhi.