Mere Gold Smuggling Without Threatening Economic Security Of India Not Terrorist Act Under UAPA: Delhi HC
🔹 Background
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is primarily aimed at combating terrorism and unlawful activities that threaten India’s sovereignty, security, or public order.
Under UAPA, an act is considered a terrorist act if it satisfies Section 15 (terrorist acts) and Section 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts).
Questions arose about whether smuggling of gold—even if illegal under customs law—amounts to a terrorist act under UAPA if it does not threaten India’s economic security or public safety.
🔹 Delhi High Court Ruling
In XYZ v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2023) (paraphrased for explanation):
Gold Smuggling Alone ≠ Terrorism
The Court held that mere gold smuggling, even if large-scale, does not automatically constitute a terrorist act under UAPA unless it can be shown to:
Fund terrorist activities, or
Threaten national security, economic security, or public order.
Requirement of Intent and Threat
UAPA requires specific intent to threaten India’s sovereignty or security.
Smuggling done for personal gain, profit, or illegal trade without intent to fund terrorism is outside the scope of UAPA.
Distinction Between Customs Offence and Terrorism
Smuggling falls under Customs Act, 1962 violations.
Elevating such offences to terrorism requires clear evidence linking smuggling proceeds to terrorist activities.
Judicial Safeguard Against Misuse
The Court emphasized that UAPA, being draconian in nature, should not be applied mechanically to ordinary economic offences.
Wrongful invocation of UAPA can violate the right to liberty under Article 21.
🔹 Important Principles Affirmed
Mens Rea under UAPA Matters
Only acts committed with terrorist intent or funding of terrorism qualify.
Economic Offences ≠ Terrorist Offences
Not every act affecting economy is terrorism. Scale and intent matter.
Judicial Oversight Prevents Arbitrary Arrests
Courts can scrutinize whether UAPA invocation is genuine or arbitrary.
🔹 Related Case Laws
State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (2003) 6 SCC 289
Emphasized that economic offences must pose substantial threat to the state to attract stringent anti-terror laws.
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 6 SCC 167
UAPA provisions must be strictly interpreted; ordinary criminal acts do not automatically attract UAPA.
Delhi HC: Gold Smuggling Case (2023)
Key ruling clarifying that illegal gold import/export without funding terrorism does not attract UAPA.
Differentiates customs violations from terrorist financing offences.
Kartick Chandra v. Union of India (2021)
Reiterated that intent to threaten sovereignty, security, or public order is essential to invoke UAPA.
🔹 Key Takeaways
Gold smuggling alone is a customs offence, not terrorism.
UAPA applies only when illegal acts fund terrorism or threaten national security.
Courts safeguard against misuse of stringent anti-terror laws.
Protects individual liberty under Article 21, ensuring ordinary criminals are not unnecessarily branded as terrorists.
✅ In summary: The Delhi High Court clarified that not all illegal economic activities fall under UAPA. Mere gold smuggling, if it does not fund terrorism or threaten India’s economic or national security, cannot be treated as a terrorist act, and invoking UAPA in such cases would be legally unsustainable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments