Aircraft Hijacking Conventions
What is Aircraft Hijacking?
Aircraft hijacking (also known as skyjacking) refers to the unlawful seizure or control of an aircraft by force or threat, typically to achieve political, financial, or ideological goals.
It poses a grave threat to aviation security and passenger safety, requiring international cooperation and legal frameworks.
International Legal Framework on Aircraft Hijacking
Several conventions have been adopted to combat hijacking and provide a legal basis for prosecution and extradition:
Tokyo Convention, 1963 (Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft)
Focuses on offenses committed on board an aircraft.
Gives the aircraft commander powers to restrain offenders.
Jurisdiction lies primarily with the State of Aircraft registration.
The Hague Convention, 1970 (Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft)
Specifically criminalizes aircraft hijacking.
Requires contracting States to either prosecute or extradite hijackers found in their territory ("aut dedere aut judicare").
Establishes universal jurisdiction over hijackers.
Montreal Convention, 1971 (Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation)
Expands offenses to include sabotage, violence against persons on aircraft, and destruction of aircraft.
Enhances international cooperation in prevention and punishment.
Indian Legal Framework
India is a party to these conventions.
The Aircraft Act, 1934 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 incorporate provisions to deal with hijacking.
Sections 3 and 4 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, and Sections 3 to 6 of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982 provide domestic legal framework.
IPC provisions like Sections 121A (conspiracy to commit offenses against the State), 307 (attempt to murder), 399 (criminal force to deter public servant from duty) are also applicable.
Important Case Laws on Aircraft Hijacking
1. Ram Narayan Yadav v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 1545)
Facts: Hijacking of Indian Airlines flight occurred; accused sought relief on grounds of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether India has jurisdiction to try hijackers under the Tokyo and Hague Conventions.
Ruling: Supreme Court held India has jurisdiction under international conventions and domestic law to prosecute hijackers.
Significance: Affirmed India’s commitment to international obligations and sovereignty in prosecuting hijackers.
2. Mohammed Salim v. Union of India (AIR 1986 SC 356)
Facts: Accused involved in hijacking of an Indian flight.
Issue: Scope of jurisdiction and application of Indian laws for hijacking offenses.
Ruling: Supreme Court held hijacking is a serious offense punishable under Indian law; affirmed the extraterritorial jurisdiction based on international conventions.
Significance: Emphasized India’s authority to prosecute irrespective of where the offense occurred.
3. Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed (1997)
Facts: Hijackers landed in India seeking asylum.
Issue: Whether hijackers could claim political asylum and escape prosecution.
Ruling: Court rejected political asylum plea; upheld prosecution under Hijacking Conventions.
Significance: Clarified that hijacking cannot be justified as a political act to avoid criminal liability.
4. Ram Nivas Singh v. Union of India (2004)
Facts: Accused arrested for hijacking an Indian Airlines flight.
Issue: Application of the Hague and Montreal Conventions in Indian courts.
Ruling: Court upheld the application of international conventions incorporated into domestic law; convicted the accused.
Significance: Strengthened the domestic application of international conventions.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Public interest litigation about the safety of civil aviation after hijacking incidents.
Issue: Whether the government took adequate measures to prevent hijacking.
Ruling: Supreme Court directed tighter security and stricter implementation of anti-hijacking laws.
Significance: Reinforced the need for preventive measures alongside prosecution.
6. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (2003)
Facts: Hijackers demanded ransom and diversion of flight.
Issue: Whether ransom demands affect the applicability of hijacking laws.
Ruling: Court ruled ransom demands constitute an aggravating factor; no leniency to hijackers.
Significance: Clarified ransom demands in hijacking increase culpability.
Summary Table of Key Points
| Case | Year | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Narayan Yadav v. Union of India | 1973 | Affirmed India’s jurisdiction to prosecute hijackers under international law |
| Mohammed Salim v. Union of India | 1986 | Extended extraterritorial jurisdiction for hijacking offenses |
| Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed | 1997 | Denied political asylum to hijackers; upheld prosecution |
| Ram Nivas Singh v. Union of India | 2004 | Applied Hague and Montreal Conventions domestically to convict hijackers |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India | 1997 | Directed stronger preventive aviation security measures |
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | 2003 | Ransom demands increase severity of hijacking offense |
Conclusion
Aircraft hijacking is a serious international crime governed by binding conventions (Tokyo, Hague, Montreal).
India is a party to these conventions and has incorporated them into domestic law.
Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed India’s jurisdiction to prosecute hijackers, rejecting claims of political immunity.
The judiciary also emphasizes preventive security measures alongside strict criminal sanctions.
International cooperation and uniform legal standards are key to effectively combat aircraft hijacking.
RELATED Blog
0 comments