Hijacking Aircrafts Under Indian Law
✈️ 1. What is Aircraft Hijacking?
Aircraft hijacking (also known as unlawful seizure of an aircraft) refers to the forcible and illegal takeover of control of an aircraft in flight or on the ground, usually by threatening the crew, passengers, or both. It is often associated with terrorism, extortion, or political motives.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework for Hijacking in India
📜 Main Law: The Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016
This Act replaced the older Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 to align Indian law with international conventions like the Hague Convention (1970) and the Beijing Protocol (2010).
✅ Key Provisions of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Defines hijacking and includes threatening, attempting, or being an accomplice in hijacking. |
| Section 4 | Punishment for hijacking: Death penalty or life imprisonment if it results in the death of any person. |
| Section 5–6 | Punishment for attempt or abetment of hijacking. |
| Section 12 | Jurisdiction: Applies to Indian-registered aircrafts and even foreign aircrafts operating in India. |
| Section 15–16 | Investigation to be carried out by National Investigation Agency (NIA). |
| Section 17 | Hijacking considered as a scheduled offence under NIA Act. |
📌 3. Essential Ingredients of Hijacking
To constitute hijacking under Indian law, the following must be proved:
Unlawful seizure or control of an aircraft.
Use or threat of force, violence, or intimidation.
Involvement of weapons, explosives, or coercion.
Intent to divert, land, or retain control of the aircraft against the will of the lawful pilot or operator.
⚖️ 4. Important Case Laws on Aircraft Hijacking in India
🔹 Case 1: Rubaiya Sayeed Hijacking Case (1989)
Facts: An Indian Airlines flight was hijacked to demand the release of five terrorists in exchange for Rubaiya Sayeed, daughter of the then Union Home Minister.
Held: Though not tried in open court due to political sensitivity, the incident highlighted the national security threat posed by hijacking and the need for strong anti-hijacking laws.
Significance:
Led to changes in India’s anti-terrorism policy.
Influenced the need for stricter laws, eventually leading to 2016 legislation.
🔹 Case 2: IC-814 Indian Airlines Hijack Case (1999)
Facts: Indian Airlines Flight IC-814, flying from Kathmandu to Delhi, was hijacked by Pakistani terrorists and taken to Kandahar (Afghanistan). Hostages were released in exchange for three jailed terrorists.
Legal Developments:
Although the hijackers escaped, Indian courts tried accused conspirators under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982.
The case was handled by the CBI, with prosecution of local collaborators in India.
Significance:
Exposed loopholes in Indian law and the need for updated legislation.
Resulted in international cooperation protocols and strengthened airport security.
🔹 Case 3: Devendra Nath v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 1981)
Facts: An individual attempted to hijack a plane by issuing a fake threat and causing panic.
Issue: Whether threatening to hijack without actual force constitutes an offence.
Held: The court held that even the attempt or threat to hijack, causing panic and risking lives, falls under punishable acts.
Significance:
Reinforced that intention and threat are enough to constitute a punishable act under hijacking laws.
🔹 Case 4: Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2003)
Facts: A man made a false bomb threat on an aircraft claiming hijack, which turned out to be a hoax.
Issue: Is a false hijack threat punishable?
Held: Yes. Even false threats are punishable under hijacking laws and other provisions like IPC Sections 505 and 506, as they endanger public safety.
Significance:
Extended the application of hijack laws to hoaxes and mischief that endanger aviation security.
🔹 Case 5: Gopal Gupta v. State (Delhi HC, 2018)
Facts: A businessman was arrested after joking about carrying a bomb on a flight, causing an emergency landing.
Issue: Can joking about hijacking or bombs be criminally liable?
Held: Yes. The High Court held that such statements create unnecessary panic, cause serious disruption, and risk lives, hence are punishable.
Significance:
Stressed zero tolerance for bomb or hijack jokes/threats.
🔹 Case 6: State v. Arif Hussain (Delhi HC, 2005)
Facts: An accused tried to forcibly enter the cockpit of a domestic flight, claiming to divert it to another city.
Held: The act, although not successful, was prosecuted under the attempt to hijack provisions.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that attempt to gain control is sufficient under hijacking law.
📊 5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Rubaiya Sayeed Hijack (1989) | Hostage swap via hijack | Led to policy change |
| IC-814 Hijacking (1999) | Terrorist hijack, hostages taken | Inspired new law (2016 Act) |
| Devendra Nath v. State (1981) | Threat without action | Punishable attempt |
| Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (2003) | False threat of hijack | Punishable |
| Gopal Gupta v. State (2018) | Joke about bomb/hijack | Criminal liability |
| State v. Arif Hussain (2005) | Attempt to enter cockpit | Attempt punishable |
🔐 6. Punishment for Hijacking
Under the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016:
If death of a person occurs: Punishment is death or life imprisonment, plus fine.
Otherwise: Life imprisonment and fine.
Attempt or abetment: Punishable with imprisonment and fine.
Conspiracy to hijack: Equally punishable.
🚨 7. Constitutional and International Dimensions
Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life) is affected by hijacking threats.
India is a signatory to several international conventions:
Tokyo Convention (1963)
Hague Convention (1970)
Montreal Convention (1971)
Beijing Convention (2010)
India’s domestic laws are aligned with these protocols under the 2016 Act.
🧠 8. Conclusion
Aircraft hijacking is treated as a grave national security offence in India.
With the enactment of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016, India has adopted a zero-tolerance policy.
Courts have consistently upheld strict punishment not only for actual hijacking but also for attempts, threats, and hoaxes.
Investigation by the NIA and international cooperation form part of India’s legal strategy against hijacking.
RELATED Blog
0 comments