Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday held that a “terrorist act” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is not confined to the execution of violence alone but also encompasses the preparatory and conspiratorial stages leading up to it.
While ruling on bail pleas in the February 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, a Bench headed by Justice Arvind Kumar examined the scope of Section 15 of the UAPA and said the statute was deliberately framed to cover a wide range of activities beyond the actual use of weapons.
Referring to Section 15(1)(a), the court noted that the definition of a terrorist act includes violence carried out through explosives, firearms or hazardous substances, as well as actions committed “by any other means”, indicating legislative intent not to restrict the offence to conventional forms of violence.
“Limiting Section 15 only to traditional modes of violence would unduly narrow its scope and run contrary to the plain language of the provision,” Justice Kumar observed.
The court rejected the argument of some accused that they could not be held liable as they were not present at the sites of violence during the riots. It accepted the prosecution’s contention that acts such as disruption of essential supplies, economic destabilisation and sustained attempts to disturb civic life could also qualify as terrorist acts under the UAPA, even in the absence of direct physical violence.
The Bench said offences under the UAPA are distinct from ordinary criminal offences as they impinge upon the security and integrity of the nation. A terrorist act, it noted, is not an isolated incident but the culmination of “organised, sustained and conspiratorial activities unfolding over time”.
On bail, the court underlined that the threshold under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is significantly higher than under general criminal law due to the gravity of the offences. While the provision curtails the usual presumption of innocence at the bail stage, it does not eliminate judicial scrutiny, the court clarified.
The stringent bar on bail applies only when, after a structured and careful examination, the court is satisfied that the accusations are prima facie true. The assessment, the Bench added, must be accused-specific, focusing on the individual role attributed to each accused.
A bail court must determine whether the alleged role establishes a “real and meaningful nexus” with the terrorist act, as distinct from mere association or peripheral involvement, the Supreme Court said.