Supreme Court Expands Definition of 'Terrorist Act' Under UAPA

The Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a 'terrorist act' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act includes not just the execution but also the planning, coordination, and other steps leading to such acts. It expands beyond traditional violence, emphasizing intent and effect, not just means.

The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of what constitutes a 'terrorist act' under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). On Monday, the court stated that terrorism isn't limited to the act of violence but extends to those aiding in its orchestration through planning, coordination, and other measures.

In a detailed judgment, justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria highlighted that Section 15 of the UAPA is not confined to traditional acts of violence by weapons but includes disruption tactics that impact the nation's unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty. The ruling placed emphasis not just on the use of tools but on the intent and result of these actions.

The decision followed a high-profile case involving the February 2020 Delhi riots, which arose from protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and drew attention to how civil unrest can intersect with legal definitions of terrorism. The court's stance stresses that comprehensive actions causing national unrest go beyond ordinary law-and-order incidents pose severe security threats.

(With inputs from agencies.)