Supreme Court Explains The finer Points Of ‘Act of Terror’ Under UAPA

File Picture : ANI/X

The Supreme Court has  ruled that an “act of terror” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is not confined only to the final execution but extends to those who contribute to the commission of such acts through planning, coordination, mobilisation or other forms of concerted action.

Section 15 of the UAPA defines a terrorist act as an act done “with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India.”

However, the provision qualifies that striking terror is by use of “bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or any other means.”

While refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, in its judgment spanning 142 pages, referred to Section 15(1)(a) of the 1967 Act to note the residuary phrase of “by another means”.

The top court said the statutory intent was not to limit the definition of terror to the use of weapons, asserting that emphasis is not solely on the instrumentality but the design, intent and effect of the act.

“Confining Section 15 to only conventional modes of violence will be to unduly narrow its ambit contrary to plain language,” it said.

“The means by which such acts may be committed or not confined to the use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone.

“Parliament has consciously employed the expression court by ‘any other means of whatever nature’ which expression cannot be rendered otiose. The statutory emphasis is thus not solely on the instrumentality employed but the design, intent and effect of the act,” the court said.

The apex court said a ‘terrorist act’ under the UAPA extended to the disruption of essential supplies leading to economic insecurity and destabilisation of civic life even if violence was not committed in the process.