Harbouring Terrorists Is A Serious Offence Under UAPA: Delhi HC
⚖️ Harbouring Terrorists under UAPA – Delhi High Court’s View
📌 Context
The Delhi High Court has categorically held that harbouring terrorists is a grave and serious offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The offence does not merely involve passive shelter but contributes directly to the sustenance of terrorism, which threatens national security and public order.
The Court has emphasized that providing shelter, assistance, or concealment to terrorists helps them evade law enforcement, thereby enabling them to commit further acts of terrorism.
⚖️ Relevant Provisions under UAPA
Section 19 – Harbouring a Terrorist
Whoever harbours or conceals any person knowing that such person is a terrorist, shall be punishable with imprisonment of not less than 3 years, extendable to life imprisonment, and fine.
Mens rea (knowledge) is key → The prosecution must prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the person harboured was a terrorist.
The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable.
📝 Delhi High Court’s Observations
Harbouring = Direct Support to Terrorism
The Court observed that harbouring is not a minor or technical offence; it plays a vital role in perpetuating terrorist activities.
National Security Consideration
In matters of terrorism, individual rights (like bail or leniency) must be balanced against the larger interest of national integrity and security.
Strict Interpretation
Even indirect assistance or concealment amounts to harbouring if the accused had knowledge of the terrorist’s identity or role.
📚 Case Laws
1. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mohd. Iqbal (Delhi HC, 2023–24)
The Delhi High Court held that granting shelter to terrorists, even for a short period, attracts Section 19 of UAPA.
Bail was denied, considering the seriousness of the offence.
2. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1
Though not directly under UAPA, the SC highlighted that anyone who assists terrorists, including by shelter, is equally culpable.
3. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1
The Court held that abetment, conspiracy, and assistance to terrorism, including harbouring, must be treated with utmost seriousness.
4. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
The SC reinforced that in terrorism-related cases, the bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA is strict.
If prima facie material shows harbouring or aiding terrorists, bail should rarely be granted.
✅ Conclusion
Harbouring terrorists under Section 19 UAPA is a grave offence, as it provides lifeline support to terrorism.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that courts cannot treat it as a minor or technical crime.
Strict punishment, denial of bail, and speedy trial are essential to deter such acts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments