Supreme Court defines 'terrorist act' under UAPA as culmination of conspiratorial activities, not just final violence
The Supreme Court, while hearing bail pleas in the 2020 Delhi riots case, ruled that a 'terrorist act' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) includes the build-up and conspiracy, not just the final act of violence. A bench led by Justice Arvind Kumar emphasized that Section 15(1)(a) covers 'other means' like disrupting essential services or causing economic insecurity. The court introduced a 'hierarchy of participation' to grant bail to five accused while denying it to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, noting that UAPA bail conditions under Section 43D(5) are more stringent than ordinary laws.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court ruled that conspiracy to commit a terrorist act is as punishable as the act itself under UAPA.
- Section 15 of UAPA is interpreted broadly to include economic destabilization and disruption of essential supplies.
- The 'hierarchy of participation' was used to distinguish between those who planned and those who merely participated in riots.
- Section 43D(5) of UAPA makes obtaining bail difficult as courts only need to find accusations 'prima facie' true.
Exam Facts
- Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA 1967 defines terrorist acts.
- Section 43D(5) provides stringent bail conditions for UAPA accused.
- Justice Arvind Kumar headed the Supreme Court bench.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.