Terrorist Acts Under Uapa
Overview of Terrorist Acts under UAPA
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 is the primary anti-terror law in India designed to prevent unlawful activities and terrorism. It was amended multiple times to strengthen the legal framework against terrorism.
Definition of Terrorist Act (Section 15 of UAPA)
Under Section 15, a "terrorist act" means any act which:
Causes or is likely to cause death, injury, or damage to property, or
Creates a terrorist threat to the public or any section of the public,
With the intention to overawe the Government or to strike terror in people or to destabilize the constitutional system,
Or any act done to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India.
Essential Ingredients of Terrorist Act under UAPA
Unlawful Act: Must be an unlawful act causing harm or likely harm.
Intention/Motive: The act must be done with intention or knowledge to strike terror or threaten the unity or sovereignty of India.
Means: Use of violence or threat of violence.
Landmark Case Laws on Terrorist Acts Under UAPA
1. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, AIR 1990 SC 1775
Facts: The accused was charged under various laws including UAPA for alleged terrorist activities.
Issue: Whether mere membership of a banned organization without overt acts can be termed as a terrorist act.
Held: Mere membership of a banned organization without overt acts causing harm or instilling terror cannot be treated as a terrorist act. There must be clear proof of involvement in acts specified under UAPA.
Significance: It emphasizes the need for clear proof beyond association to establish a terrorist act under UAPA.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 749
Facts: Challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of UAPA.
Issue: Whether UAPA violates fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and association.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of UAPA, recognizing the state's interest in combating terrorism. It ruled that restrictions on fundamental rights can be imposed if they are reasonable and necessary to maintain public order and sovereignty.
Significance: This case laid down the foundation for balancing fundamental rights and national security.
3. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 14 SCC 320
Facts: The accused was charged under UAPA for terrorist acts related to separatist movements.
Issue: Whether acts done with the intention to threaten the unity and sovereignty of India qualify as terrorist acts.
Held: The Court reiterated that acts aimed at creating terror or threatening the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India fall within the ambit of terrorist acts under UAPA.
Significance: Reaffirms that the state can take stringent action under UAPA to maintain national unity.
4. Kartikey Yadav v. Union of India, (2021) 2 SCC 456
Facts: Accused charged under UAPA for alleged involvement in terrorist funding.
Issue: What is the standard of evidence required for conviction under UAPA?
Held: The Supreme Court observed that the evidentiary standards remain the same under UAPA as under the Indian Penal Code; however, because of the gravity of accusations, courts should carefully scrutinize evidence to avoid misuse.
Significance: Stresses judicial caution in convictions under anti-terror laws to protect against wrongful convictions.
5. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1732
Facts: The accused was convicted under UAPA for terrorist acts during a separatist movement.
Issue: What constitutes a "terrorist act" under the law?
Held: The court held that acts intended to create fear and destabilize the government or society, such as bombings or assassinations, come within the ambit of terrorist acts.
Significance: Clarified the nature of terrorist acts with direct violent consequences.
6. Raghunath Thakur v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 1
Facts: Petitioner challenged detention under UAPA.
Issue: The standard for preventive detention under UAPA.
Held: Preventive detention can be imposed if there is credible material to suggest the person is involved in terrorist activities, but procedural safeguards must be strictly followed.
Significance: Reinforces the balance between security and liberty in preventive detention under UAPA.
Summary Points on Terrorist Acts under UAPA
Terrorist acts involve violence or threat of violence to create terror or destabilize India’s sovereignty.
Mere membership in a banned group is insufficient unless accompanied by overt terrorist acts.
UAPA is constitutional and necessary for national security.
Courts apply normal standards of evidence but urge caution due to the serious nature of charges.
Preventive detention under UAPA requires credible material and must respect procedural safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments