Definition Of Terrorism In Bns
I. Introduction
Terrorism in India is not defined under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) itself but under special statutes aimed at combating terrorism and organized violence, such as:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 (now repealed)
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958
Various anti-terror laws at the state level
The UAPA is the primary law defining terrorism in India.
II. Statutory Definition of Terrorism Under UAPA
Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
“Terrorist Act” means any act which—
(i) threatens or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India; or
(ii) strikes terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country; or
(iii) involves using bombs, dynamite, or any other explosive substances with intent to overawe the government or to strike terror in people.
Acts falling under this definition are deemed terrorist acts.
III. Important Elements of Terrorism
Use or threat of violence or force.
Intention to create fear or terror among people or destabilize the government.
Targeting of civilians, government institutions, or public infrastructure.
Acts may include bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, or armed attacks.
Often aimed at political, religious, or ideological goals.
IV. Judicial Interpretation of Terrorism
1. State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Laxmikant Sharma, AIR 1977 SC 2445
Facts:
The accused was charged under Prevention of Terrorism Act for organizing violent acts.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the intention to create terror or fear in the public or destabilize the government is a key element of terrorism.
Significance:
Clarified the mental element (mens rea) required for terrorism.
2. K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
Facts:
Challenge to detention under anti-terror laws.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that acts of terrorism cannot be justified under any pretext and the state has a legitimate right to use stringent laws.
Significance:
Reinforced state’s power to combat terrorism.
3. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Facts:
Accused charged under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
Held:
Court held that terrorism involves acts that cause serious harm or threat to public safety and political motives.
Significance:
Detailed judicial scrutiny of what constitutes terrorist activities.
4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
Facts:
Public Interest Litigation regarding excesses committed under anti-terror laws.
Held:
Court emphasized that while combating terrorism, fundamental rights must be protected and safeguards against abuse of power ensured.
Significance:
Balanced approach between security and liberty.
5. Anwar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, AIR 2014 SC 3181
Facts:
Challenge to conviction under UAPA.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the term terrorism under UAPA is broad and inclusive, covering acts beyond conventional crimes, specifically those creating terror and threatening the state.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the wide scope of the definition of terrorism.
6. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374
Facts:
Related to communal violence with terrorist overtones.
Held:
Court recognized that terrorism also includes violence to disrupt communal harmony and can arise from non-state actors.
Significance:
Expanded judicial understanding of terrorism beyond political insurgency.
V. Summary Table
| Case | Key Points | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Sharma | Intent to create terror is essential element | Defined mens rea of terrorism |
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | No justification for terrorism | Supported stringent anti-terror laws |
| Kartar Singh v. Punjab | Terrorism includes serious public harm + motive | Detailed elements of terrorist acts |
| PUCL v. Union of India | Protect fundamental rights amidst anti-terror laws | Balanced security and liberty |
| Anwar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | Broad, inclusive definition of terrorism | Reinforced UAPA’s wide scope |
| Zahira Habibulla v. Gujarat | Terrorism includes communal violence | Expanded concept to non-state actors |
VI. Conclusion
The definition of terrorism in Indian law is broad and primarily framed in the UAPA, focusing on acts that threaten the sovereignty, unity, security, or public peace by creating terror or fear. Judicial interpretations emphasize the intent to terrorize, cause serious harm, or destabilize the government as the core of terrorism. Courts have balanced the need for stringent laws with protection of fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments