Terrorism Definitions In Bns Vs Uapa
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
The UAPA is the primary anti-terrorism law in India. It defines terrorism explicitly.
Section 15 of UAPA defines a "terrorist act" as any act committed with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people.
Such acts may include:
Causing death or injury to persons
Damage to property
Disruption of supplies (water, power, etc.)
Attacks on government or public places
Any acts causing terror or violence.
The definition is broad and includes individual or group acts aiming to create terror or harm public order.
BNS / National Security Framework
The Bilateral National Security (BNS) framework is not a specific Indian statute but generally refers to cooperative frameworks in national security involving multiple laws and agencies, including UAPA.
It broadly covers acts threatening the country’s security.
Terrorism under this framework generally aligns with UAPA’s legal definitions but also includes:
Cyber terrorism
Economic terrorism
Threats from foreign entities
The focus is on protecting the state, people, and infrastructure from internal and external threats.
2. Detailed Explanation of Key Case Laws Related to Terrorism Under UAPA
Case 1: State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B. Desai (2003) AIR 2268
Facts: Praful Desai was accused of being involved in terrorist activities under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act and UAPA.
Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified the importance of strict procedural safeguards while dealing with terrorism cases, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to avoid misuse.
Key takeaway: The court emphasized balancing state power with individual rights and ensuring the correct application of UAPA.
Case 2: State of NCT of Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 (The Parliament Attack Case)
Facts: The accused were charged with the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the attack was a terrorist act as it aimed to threaten India’s sovereignty and democratic structure.
Key takeaway: The court reinforced that terrorism includes attacks on democratic institutions and public order and upheld UAPA provisions.
Case 3: K.K. Verma vs. Union of India (2018)
Facts: K.K. Verma challenged certain provisions of UAPA, arguing they were vague and violated fundamental rights.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of UAPA, holding that the broad definition of terrorism is necessary to combat modern terrorism threats.
Key takeaway: The court ruled that while provisions are broad, safeguards exist, and the law balances national security and individual rights.
Case 4: NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1209
Facts: Zahoor Watali was accused under UAPA for links with terrorist organizations.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that mere association with a banned organization is not sufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove active involvement in terrorist acts.
Key takeaway: Strict proof of involvement is needed; mere membership is not enough.
Case 5: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts: PUCL challenged some provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), a predecessor to UAPA.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that procedural safeguards like regular trial, bail rights, and fair investigation must be ensured in anti-terror laws.
Key takeaway: Even in terrorism laws, protection of fundamental rights and fair procedure are paramount.
3. Summary
| Aspect | UAPA Definition of Terrorism | BNS/National Security Framework |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Acts threatening sovereignty, security, public order | Broader, includes cyber, economic terrorism |
| Focus | Specific terrorist acts causing terror or violence | Overall national security including foreign threats |
| Legal Safeguards | Procedural safeguards under law, strict evidence | National-level security measures, coordination across agencies |
| Case Law Support | Cases uphold broad definition but stress proof and rights | Broad security approach but judiciary guards against misuse |
RELATED Blog
0 comments