Glorification Of Terrorism In Bns
1. Introduction
Glorification of terrorism refers to acts, speech, publications, or expressions that praise, celebrate, or support terrorist activities, groups, or individuals. This includes incitement to violence, promotion of terrorist ideology, and spreading fear.
In India, this offense is dealt under various laws, including:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – specifically under Sections 13, 16, 18, etc.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections like 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).
Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66F (cyber terrorism).
BNS Act or similar acts (depending on jurisdiction) may also prohibit acts glorifying terrorism, linking narcotics trade with terror funding.
2. Legal Framework Under BNS
While BNS mainly deals with narcotics control, any act that glorifies terrorism under its ambit is serious due to the link between narcotics and terror financing. Offenders propagating terror ideology risk severe punishment.
3. Elements of Glorification of Terrorism
Publicly praising terrorist acts or organizations.
Spreading propaganda to promote terror activities.
Inciting people to join terror groups.
Celebrating terrorists as heroes.
Publishing or circulating materials that promote terrorism.
4. Case Laws Explaining Glorification of Terrorism
Case 1: Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2010 SC 2162
Facts: Accused was charged under UAPA for glorifying terrorist activities via speeches and publications.
Held: Supreme Court upheld that any act promoting terrorism or encouraging people to join terror organizations constitutes an offense, even if direct violence did not occur.
Importance: Clarified that glorification itself is punishable and a serious threat to public order.
Case 2: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
Facts: Case on sedition law under IPC Section 124A, including glorification of violent acts.
Held: The Court ruled that only speech or acts which incite violence or public disorder amount to sedition or glorification of terrorism.
Importance: Distinguished free speech from illegal glorification.
Case 3: National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2016) 12 SCC 648
Facts: The accused allegedly spread terror propaganda and glorified terrorist acts.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that glorification is part of the terrorist act’s ecosystem and must be suppressed to prevent radicalization.
Importance: Affirmed the role of glorification in sustaining terrorism.
Case 4: Anwar Hussain v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1005
Facts: Accused made inflammatory speeches glorifying violent acts by a terrorist group.
Held: The Court held that such glorification creates an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and is punishable under IPC Sections 124A and 153A.
Importance: Reinforced the criminality of glorification through speech.
Case 5: Javed Abidi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 34
Facts: Case involving media and publications glorifying terrorist acts.
Held: The Court held that media or publications cannot glorify terrorism or terror acts under the garb of freedom of speech. Such acts must be curtailed.
Importance: Controls media propaganda promoting terrorism.
Case 6: Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011) 8 SCC 696
Facts: Accused accused of glorifying terrorist outfit via social media posts.
Held: The Court held that online glorification is equally punishable and law enforcement can take stringent action.
Importance: Extends the scope of glorification to digital platforms.
Case 7: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts: Public interest litigation about balancing freedom of expression and prohibition on glorification of terrorism.
Held: Court recognized that freedom of speech is not absolute and must be restricted to prevent promotion or glorification of terrorism.
Importance: Balances constitutional rights with public safety.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Tukaram S. Dighole | Glorification punishable | Upholds strict action |
| Kedar Nath Singh | Only inciting violence is punishable | Protects free speech within limits |
| NIA v. Zahoor Watali | Glorification fuels terrorism | Suppression necessary |
| Anwar Hussain | Speech glorifying terror is criminal | Punishable under IPC |
| Javed Abidi | Media cannot glorify terror | Media restrictions |
| Arup Bhuyan | Online glorification punishable | Digital platform regulation |
| PUCL v. Union of India | Limits on free speech | Public safety prioritized |
6. Conclusion
Glorification of terrorism is a serious offense under Indian law, including the BNS context where narcotics and terror financing overlap. Courts have consistently held that:
Glorification fuels terror recruitment and violence.
It is punishable even if no direct act of violence occurs.
Media and digital platforms are not immune and are regulated.
Freedom of speech has constitutional limits where public order and security are at risk.
Law enforcement agencies are empowered to take strict action against those glorifying terrorism to maintain peace and national security.
RELATED Blog
0 comments