Terrorism Act 2000 Provisions
1. Introduction to the Terrorism Act, 2000
The Terrorism Act, 2000 is primarily codified in India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), with major amendments in 2004, 2008, and 2019. It deals with terrorist activities, financing, and organizations.
Objective of the Act
Prevent unlawful activities and terrorism.
Regulate associations promoting terrorism.
Provide measures for investigation, detention, and prosecution.
Protect sovereignty and integrity of India.
Key Definitions
Terrorist Act (Sec 15 UAPA): Acts intended to threaten national security, intimidate citizens, or disrupt law and order.
Terrorist Organisation (Sec 35 UAPA): Groups involved in terrorism or promoting it.
Terrorist Property (Sec 17 UAPA): Property used for terrorism or facilitating such acts.
2. Major Provisions of the Terrorism Act / UAPA
| Section | Provision | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Sec 15 | Punishment for terrorist act | Death or life imprisonment depending on severity |
| Sec 16 | Punishment for terrorist act causing death | Death or life imprisonment; rigorous punishment for grievous injury |
| Sec 18 | Offence of conspiracy | Punishment for planning or conspiring terrorist acts |
| Sec 17 | Punishment for raising funds for terrorism | Covers financial support to terrorist organizations |
| Sec 35 | Banning terrorist organizations | Court notified and government power to ban groups |
| Sec 43D | Bail restrictions | Strict conditions for granting bail to accused |
| Sec 43A | Arrest of members | Authorizes preventive detention of suspected terrorists |
| Sec 17B | Forfeiture of property | Property used for terrorism can be confiscated |
Key Points:
UAPA allows pre-emptive detention and investigation.
Bail is difficult due to strict provisions.
Courts scrutinize evidence rigorously to prevent misuse.
3. Landmark Case Laws on Terrorism and UAPA
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub Memon (2007)
Facts: Convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld death sentence; emphasized that terrorist acts targeting public cause mass casualties, justifying capital punishment.
Significance: Reinforced severity of punishment for terrorism under UAPA provisions.
Case 2: National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2013)
Facts: Accused involved in terrorist conspiracy and funding.
Judgment: Court upheld that conspiracy and funding of terrorism are punishable under Sections 17 & 18, even without direct involvement in attacks.
Significance: Expanded scope to financial and logistical support.
Case 3: People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003)
Facts: Challenge to preventive detention and UAPA provisions.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld preventive detention under UAPA, but stressed strict judicial review.
Significance: Balanced national security with fundamental rights (Articles 14, 21).
Case 4: State v. Anwar Ali (2011)
Facts: Accused charged with membership in a banned terrorist organization.
Judgment: Court confirmed conviction under Section 35 UAPA; membership itself is punishable even if no act committed.
Significance: Membership or association with terrorist groups is a cognizable offence.
Case 5: Zakir Hussain v. State of Kerala (2015)
Facts: Accused arrested for financing terrorist activities.
Judgment: Court held that raising funds for terrorism, even remotely, is punishable; emphasizes proving intention to fund terrorism.
Significance: Strengthened anti-terror financing measures.
Case 6: National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali II (2018)
Facts: Bail challenge for accused under UAPA.
Judgment: Supreme Court highlighted that grant of bail under Section 43D is exceptional, must consider risk to public order and likelihood of repeating terrorism.
Significance: Clarifies strict bail framework under terrorism law.
Case 7: State of Gujarat v. Rajeshbhai (2012)
Facts: Possession of explosives and firearms for terrorist acts.
Judgment: Court upheld conviction under Sections 15 & 16; possession itself with intent is punishable.
Significance: Possession of materials for terrorism constitutes direct offense under UAPA.
4. Principles Derived from Cases
Strict liability for terrorist acts: Participation, membership, funding, or preparation are punishable.
Preventive measures: UAPA allows detention and surveillance to prevent acts before they occur.
Bail restrictions: Courts adopt strict criteria; public safety takes precedence.
Membership of banned organizations: Punishable even without direct involvement in attacks.
Financial and logistical support is criminalized: Conspiracy and funding fall under UAPA provisions.
Judicial review: Courts ensure balancing of fundamental rights and security needs.
5. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Judgment / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Yakub Memon | 2007 | Serial blasts | Death penalty; severe punishment for mass casualties |
| NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali | 2013 | Terrorist funding & conspiracy | Financial support is punishable under Sec 17 & 18 |
| PUCL v. UOI | 2003 | Preventive detention | Detention valid but subject to judicial review |
| State v. Anwar Ali | 2011 | Membership in banned org | Mere membership punishable under Sec 35 |
| Zakir Hussain v. Kerala | 2015 | Terror financing | Raising funds for terrorism is a cognizable offense |
| NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali II | 2018 | Bail under UAPA | Bail exceptional under Sec 43D; public safety key |
| State of Gujarat v. Rajeshbhai | 2012 | Explosives possession | Possession with intent to use in terrorism punishable |
✅ Key Takeaway: The Terrorism Act / UAPA provides comprehensive tools to combat terrorism, covering acts, conspiracy, funding, and organizational membership. Courts balance national security with fundamental rights, while statutory presumptions make convictions feasible for preparation and support activities, even if direct attack has not occurred.
RELATED Blog
0 comments