Criminal Liability For Attacks On Transport And Public Utilities
🧩 I. Legal Framework for Attacks on Transport and Public Utilities
Relevant Laws:
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 121: Waging war against the state.
Section 302: Murder.
Section 307: Attempt to murder.
Section 427: Mischief causing damage to public property.
Section 436: Mischief by fire to destroy public property.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
Section 15: Terrorist acts.
Section 16: Punishment for terrorist acts.
Section 18: Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
Railways Act, 1989
Section 154: Penalties for causing damage or destruction to railway property.
Section 155: Punishment for obstructing the functioning of railways.
The National Security Act (NSA)
Section 3: Preventive detention of individuals involved in attacks on public services and infrastructure that pose a threat to national security.
Key Principles:
Public Utility Infrastructure: These include critical services like transportation, communication, water, and energy, whose destruction can have widespread, catastrophic impacts on society.
Criminal Liability: Criminal liability arises when such attacks are carried out intentionally or recklessly, with the aim to harm public safety, disrupt the functioning of the state, or terrorize the public.
⚖️ II. Criminal Liability in Attacks on Transport and Public Utilities
Attacks on public infrastructure often invoke serious criminal charges such as terrorism, attempted murder, and destruction of public property. Below are five landmark cases that illustrate how criminal liability is imposed in such instances:
1. The 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks (2008) – Attack on Public Infrastructure
Facts:
On November 26, 2008, a group of terrorists attacked multiple targets in Mumbai, including Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus (CST), Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, and Leopold Café.
The attacks led to extensive damage to public transport infrastructure (CST station) and civilian casualties. The attacks were coordinated to cause maximum chaos in public spaces.
Criminal Liability:
The accused, including Ajmal Kasab, were charged under various provisions of the IPC (Section 121 - waging war against the state, Section 302 - murder, Section 307 - attempt to murder) and the UAPA (Section 16 - terrorist acts, Section 18 - conspiracy).
The attacks were classified as terrorist acts targeting public transport (CST) and public safety (hotel attacks), aiming to destabilize the nation and cause panic.
Judicial Proceedings:
Kasab's trial was a significant example of the application of terrorism laws to protect public utilities. The Supreme Court of India confirmed his death sentence, acknowledging the gravity of attacks on public infrastructure.
The terrorist nature of the crime was central to the prosecution's case.
Outcome:
Kasab was convicted and sentenced to death, but the case was also pivotal in setting precedents for prosecution under UAPA for terrorist acts targeting public infrastructure.
Significance:
Demonstrated the application of terrorism laws (UAPA) for attacks on critical transport hubs (CST) and public spaces.
Reinforced the view that attacks on public utilities are acts of war that require stringent judicial treatment.
2. The Samjhauta Express Bombing Case (2007)
Facts:
On February 18, 2007, two bombs exploded on the Samjhauta Express train, killing 68 people, including Indian and Pakistani citizens.
The attack targeted a major transport system, the train connecting India and Pakistan, which has historical and political significance.
Criminal Liability:
The accused were charged with terrorist activities under UAPA, and IPC sections for murder (Section 302) and attempt to murder (Section 307).
The attack was aimed at creating communal unrest and disrupting Indo-Pakistani relations by targeting an international public transport route.
Judicial Proceedings:
The case was initially handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) due to the international and inter-state ramifications.
The trial court acquitted all accused, citing insufficient evidence and issues with forensic analysis. The case was controversial due to the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the bombings.
Outcome:
Despite the lack of a conviction, the case raised critical questions regarding investigations into terrorism-related attacks on transport.
Significance:
Emphasized the need for robust forensic investigations in terrorism cases targeting public transport.
Highlighted the complexity of proving intent and involvement in attacks on public infrastructure.
3. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) – Attack on Public Health Infrastructure
Facts:
On December 3, 1984, a gas leak at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal led to the death of over 3,000 people and impacted the health of lakhs more.
While not a terrorist attack, this was an attack on public health infrastructure, causing mass casualties and environmental damage.
Criminal Liability:
Initially, corporate negligence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 304A (causing death by negligence) was invoked.
The trial was complicated by issues related to corporate accountability, insufficient punishment, and gaps in forensic evidence due to the nature of industrial accidents.
Judicial Proceedings:
The trial court convicted top officials of UCIL and sentenced them to two years in prison in 2010. The case was criticized for the minimal punishment given the scale of the disaster.
The Supreme Court later upheld the settlement between the government and Union Carbide, but the case remained controversial due to lack of justice for victims.
Outcome:
This case did not directly involve public transport or utilities but illustrates criminal liability in cases of attacks on public infrastructure, where negligence or failure to meet safety standards results in catastrophic consequences.
Significance:
Raised awareness about corporate responsibility and the lack of effective legal mechanisms to hold entities accountable for attacks on critical infrastructure such as public health facilities.
4. The 2016 Pathankot Airbase Attack
Facts:
On January 2, 2016, terrorists attacked the Pathankot Airbase, targeting India’s defense infrastructure and disrupting the operation of air transport.
The attack killed several security personnel and led to the temporary shutdown of air traffic in the region.
Criminal Liability:
The attackers were charged with terrorism under UAPA, attempted murder, and destruction of military property under IPC Section 436 (mischief by fire to destroy property).
The attack was linked to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) group, which had a history of targeting critical national infrastructure.
Judicial Proceedings:
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigated the case, and the prosecution focused on terrorist motives and the damage to public infrastructure (airbase).
The case was marked by national security implications, and multiple suspects were arrested, but questions arose about evidence-gathering and jurisdictional challenges in prosecuting cross-border terrorism.
Outcome:
The case led to preventive measures being implemented at sensitive military and civilian transport infrastructure, emphasizing security threats.
Significance:
Highlighted the threat of militant attacks on defense infrastructure and underscored the importance of national security laws like UAPA in addressing terrorism-related offenses.
5. The 2014 Kashmir Railway Track Bombing
Facts:
On March 13, 2014, a bomb exploded near the railway tracks in Kashmir, damaging the infrastructure but not causing immediate fatalities.
The blast was attributed to militant groups aiming to disrupt transportation in the region and to create fear among civilians.
Criminal Liability:
The perpetrators were charged under Section 121A of the IPC (waging war), and UAPA for terrorism-related offenses.
Damage to public property and terrorist intentions were central to the prosecution's case.
Judicial Proceedings:
The case relied on forensic investigations, including explosive residue analysis and witness testimony.
The accused were arrested under preventive detention provisions and charged for targeting public utilities and infrastructure.
Outcome:
The accused were convicted, with the case becoming an example of terrorism disrupting rail transport.
Significance:
Demonstrated the criminal liability for attacks on public transport in conflict zones and highlighted the challenges of proving terrorist motives in areas of unrest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments