UAPA Explained: Expansion of Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’ in India

The Supreme Court expanded the definition of a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act to cover not only the final violence but also preparatory & conspiratorial actions.

About the Definition of a Terrorist Act

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Definition: Section 15 of the UAPA defines a terrorist act as any act committed with the intention to
- Threat Intent: Threaten India’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty.
- Terror Intent: Strike terror among people or any section of people in India or abroad.
Methods Clause: Such intent can be carried out using conventional weapons, hazardous substances, or any other methods.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Statutory Codification: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 codifies terrorism as a distinct offence under Section 113.
Expanded Intent: It broadens the scope to cover acts aimed at intimidating the public or disrupting public order.
New Criteria: The provision treats extensive interference with critical infrastructure or damage to national economic security as terrorism.
Police Discretion: A Superintendent of Police may decide whether to register a terrorism case under BNS or UAPA.

Supreme Court Interpretation of Terrorism

Motive Test: In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, the Court distinguished terrorism from ordinary crime based on the intent to overawe the government or instil terror in society.
Beyond Disorder: Terrorist acts must threaten the nation’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty beyond mere law-and-order disruptions.
Membership Rule: In Arup Bhuyan (2023 Review), the Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation is a crime, even without violence or incitement.

Broadening the Scope of “Terrorist Act”

Scope Expansion: In the recent Gulfisha Fatima ruling, the Supreme Court broadened Section 15 of UAPA by considering organised, preparatory activities as part of a terrorist act.
Residual Means: The phrase “by any other means of whatever nature” in Section 15 includes non-violent actions deliberately planned to cause terror.
Civic Paralysis: Democratic protests like road blockades may qualify as terrorist acts if part of conspiracies to paralyse state functions.
Non-Violent Terror: Acts that disrupt civic life can be terrorism if they threaten national sovereignty, even without immediate physical violence.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

Primary Law: UAPA is India’s principal anti-terrorism law aimed at preventing threats to national sovereignty and integrity.
Investigating Agency: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has nationwide primary jurisdiction to investigate offences under the UAPA.
Search Powers: The 2019 amendment removed the requirement for prior state DGP approval for raids and seizures in UAPA cases.
- Investigating officers now require sanction only from the Director General of the NIA.
Terror Designation: After the 2019 amendment, the Central Government can designate both organisations and individuals as terrorists.
Bail Standard: Under Section 43D (5), bail is denied if the court finds the accusations prima facie true based on prosecution material.
Extended Custody: UAPA permits detention without a charge-sheet for up to 180 days, unlike the 60–90 days under CrPC.

Bail and Legal Consequences under UAPA

Role Inquiry: The Court established a ‘hierarchy of participation’, focusing on the individual role rather than the overall gravity of the offence.
- Peripheral Role: Peripheral or minor participants are more eligible for bail than masterminds or ideological drivers of terrorism.
Delay Rule: Mere passage of time or trial delay does not automatically justify bail in a prima facie terrorism case.
Constitutional Delay: Delay becomes a ground for bail only when continued incarceration reaches ‘constitutional impermissibility’ under Article 21, as held in K.A. Najeeb (2021).

Implications for Democracy and Federalism

Protest Chilling: NCRB data show UAPA cases rose from 1,126 (2015) to 1,421 (2022), creating fear among civil society and discouraging lawful dissent.
Bail Denial: Conviction rate under UAPA remains below 30%, yet over 70% accused are denied bail, weakening the presumption of innocence (NCRB).
Federal Dilution: Post-2019 amendments allow NIA suo-motu action across states, reducing state control over policing, a state subject under the Constitution.
Pretrial Incarceration: UAPA permits 180-day detention without a charge sheet, leading to prolonged imprisonment despite acquittals in cases like Watali and Najeeb.
Dissent Securitisation: Application of UAPA in protest-related cases (e.g., 2020 Delhi unrest) shows the risk of treating political dissent as a national security threat.

Way Forward: Balancing Security and Liberty

Legal Clarity: NCRB shows over 65% UAPA cases end without conviction, underscoring the need to separate terrorism from civil protest through statutory thresholds clearly.
Judicial Review: Supreme Court in K.A. Najeeb (2021) held prolonged incarceration violates Article 21, highlighting the need for stricter bail scrutiny in lengthy detentions.
Legislative Oversight: Law Commission (2018) recommended periodic review of special laws like UAPA to prevent mission creep and misuse.
Investigative Capacity: NCRB 2022 data show low conviction rates due to weak evidence, stressing training in forensic, cyber and financial investigation methods.
Dissent Protection: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that peaceful dissent is the “safety valve of democracy,” requiring explicit safeguards aligned with constitutional morality.

Expanded UAPA powers strengthen preventive security, but unchecked use risks silencing dissent and centralising authority. As the Supreme Court observes, “Peaceful dissent is the safety valve of democracy,” requiring a balance between security and liberty.

Reference: The Hindu | PMFIAS: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 495

Q. The expanded interpretation of ‘terrorist act’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) strengthens preventive security architecture but raises serious concerns for civil liberties. Examine the Supreme Court’s evolving approach and assess its implications for democratic freedoms and federalism in India. (250 Words) (15 Marks)

Approach

Introduction: Write a brief introduction about the expanded interpretation of the ‘terrorist act’.
Body: Write the Supreme Court’s evolving approach to the expanded interpretation of ‘terrorist act’, also mention its implications for democratic freedoms and federalism in India, and the way forward.
Conclusion: Emphasis on the balanced approach to strengthen security architecture and civil liberties.