Terrorism Offences Under Uapa
Overview
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is India’s primary legislation to prevent unlawful activities and terrorism. It criminalizes acts threatening the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the country, including terrorist acts.
Key Provisions Related to Terrorism Offences
Section 2(1)(h): Defines “terrorist act” to include acts causing death, injury, damage to property, or disruption of supplies with intent to threaten the government or public.
Section 15: Punishment for terrorist acts.
Section 17: Punishment for raising funds for terrorist acts.
Section 18: Punishment for conspiracy, attempt, and abetment of terrorist acts.
Section 38: Special courts for speedy trial of offences under the UAPA.
Section 43D: Provisions related to bail, making it more stringent in terrorism cases.
Nature of Terrorism Offences Under UAPA
Wide scope covering physical violence, intimidation, disruption of essential services.
Includes financing, recruitment, conspiracy, and incitement.
Heavy penalties, including life imprisonment and death sentence.
Important Case Law on Terrorism Offences Under UAPA
1. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601
Issue: Definition of ‘terrorist act’ and proof of intention.
Details:
The Supreme Court clarified that for an act to be terrorism under UAPA, it must be intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India. Mere commission of violent acts is insufficient without this mens rea (intention).
Significance:
Emphasized the requirement of specific intent in terrorism offences, not just the act itself.
2. Kartikey Singh v. Union of India, (2021) 1 SCC 1
Issue: Bail provisions under UAPA (Section 43D).
Details:
The Supreme Court held that bail in UAPA cases is not automatic and must be granted only when the court finds the accusations are prima facie false or the application is bona fide. The stringent bail conditions reflect the serious nature of terrorism offences.
Significance:
Reinforces the restrictive nature of bail to prevent misuse of UAPA provisions.
3. S.N. Nair v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 1165
Issue: Scope of “unlawful activities” under the Act.
Details:
The Court broadly interpreted unlawful activities as acts threatening the sovereignty and security of the state, which can include terrorist offences under UAPA.
Significance:
Helped define the ambit of UAPA offences related to terrorism.
4. Muslim Majlis v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 1461
Issue: Validity of UAPA provisions restricting freedom of speech and association.
Details:
The Court upheld restrictions on associations indulging in unlawful activities, including terrorism, emphasizing state’s interest in national security over absolute freedom.
Significance:
Balancing fundamental rights with anti-terrorism needs under UAPA.
5. Anwar Ali Khan v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 10 SCC 309
Issue: Conspiracy and abetment under UAPA.
Details:
The Court emphasized that conspiracy and abetment to terrorism under UAPA must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and are separate offences attracting severe punishment.
Significance:
Clarifies the evidentiary standards for terrorism-related conspiracy offences.
Summary of Key Points
Definition: Terrorism under UAPA involves acts intended to threaten or coerce the government or public, with violence or threat.
Intent: Specific mens rea is essential to distinguish terrorism from other crimes.
Strict Bail: Bail is highly restricted under Section 43D to prevent flight risk or tampering with evidence.
Punishments: Include long imprisonment terms, fines, and in rare cases, capital punishment.
Judicial Oversight: Courts balance national security and individual rights, ensuring procedural safeguards.
Practical Implications
Prosecutors must establish specific intent for terrorism offences.
Defence in UAPA terrorism cases faces stringent bail hurdles.
Special courts ensure speedy trials.
The law is designed to curb not only acts of terror but also their support structures like funding and conspiracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments