Terrorist Attack unlawful under Law in deeply analysis.

April 23, 2025
| No Comments

Under Indian law, a “terrorist” is generally defined as someone who is a member of a designated terrorist organization or who commits or attempts to commit terrorist acts. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, provides the legal framework for dealing with terrorist activities and designating individuals or organizations as terrorists. 

  • Definition of Terrorist Act:
    The UAPA defines a terrorist act as any act with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people, and which is carried out using explosives, firearms, or other dangerous means, resulting in death, injuries, property damage, or disruption of essential services.
    Terrorist Organizations:
    The UAPA lists various organizations as terrorist organizations, including Al-Qaida, the Communist Party of India (Maoist), and Indian Mujahideen, among others.

    I. Definition of a Terrorist Attack

    A terrorist attack typically involves:

    • Use of violence or threat of violence,

    • Against civilians or public infrastructure,

    • To achieve political, ideological, religious, or economic objectives,

    • Outside the norms of armed conflict or without lawful state sanction.

    II. Indian Legal Framework

    1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)

    🔸 Section 15: Definition of Terrorist Act

    A terrorist act includes:

    • Acts causing death, injuries, or damage to property,

    • Use of explosives, firearms, biological or chemical substances,

    • Intention to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, or security of India.

    🔸 Section 16: Punishment

    • Death or life imprisonment in cases involving loss of life.

    • Imprisonment for not less than 5 years in other cases.

    🔸 Sections 18 & 20

    • Conspiracy and membership in a terrorist organization are also punishable.

    Judicial Interpretation:

    • K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021): Supreme Court upheld strict bail conditions under UAPA, considering the seriousness of terrorist acts.

    2. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

    Relevant Sections:

    • Section 302 – Murder

    • Section 121 – Waging war against the State

    • Section 124A – Sedition

    • Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups

    • Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy

    These provisions are used to prosecute those responsible for terrorism-related offences even outside the scope of UAPA.

    3. National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008

    • Establishes a federal agency empowered to investigate and prosecute offences under UAPA, Explosives Act, etc.

    • Helps deal with inter-state and cross-border terrorism efficiently.

    III. International Legal Framework

    1. United Nations Resolutions

    🔹 UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001)

    • Adopted after the 9/11 attacks.

    • Obligates all member states to criminalize terrorism, prevent financing, and cooperate internationally.

    🔹 Resolution 2178 (2014)

    • Focus on foreign terrorist fighters, recruitment, and radicalization.

    2. International Conventions

    India is a party to several anti-terrorism conventions:

    • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

    • SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism

    • Hague Convention (1970), Montreal Convention (1971) – Focused on aviation-related terrorism.

    IV. Constitutional Law Aspects

    Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

    • Terrorist acts directly violate this fundamental right.

    • The State has a positive obligation to protect citizens from such acts (Refer: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – concept of positive duties under Article 21).

    Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Assembly

    • Misuse of these rights to incite violence or terrorism is not protected.

    • Reasonable restrictions can be imposed in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, and public order.

    V. Natural Law and Jurisprudential Perspective

    • Natural law theorists (like Aquinas) argue that law must be in line with morality; terrorism is inherently immoral and unjust.

    • Legal positivists recognize that laws (like UAPA) specifically criminalize terrorism, thus making it clearly unlawful.

    • Utilitarian justification: Preventing terrorist acts ensures maximum security and happiness for the greatest number.

    I. General Understanding

    A terrorist attack is a violent act carried out with the intention to create fear, intimidate, or coerce a population or government, usually to advance a political, religious, or ideological cause. The hallmark of terrorism is its intent to cause terror, beyond just physical harm.

    II. Legal Definitions

    🇮🇳 Under Indian Law – UAPA, 1967

    🔸 Section 15 – Definition of “Terrorist Act”

    A “terrorist act” includes actions that:

    • Involve the use of bombs, dynamite, or other explosive substances,

    • Use firearms, lethal weapons, or poisonous chemicals,

    • Are intended to or likely to:

      • Threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India,

      • Strike terror in the people or any section of people,

      • Cause death or injury to any person,

      • Cause damage to public or private property,

      • Disrupt essential services like water supply, power, or communication.

    🔸 Explanation:

    Even a threat of such acts, or attempts, abetment, or conspiracy to commit them also come under this definition.

    Under International Law

    There is no universally agreed-upon definition of terrorism in international law, but some widely accepted formulations exist.

    🔹 UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 (1994)

    “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable.”

    🔹 UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004)

    Terrorist acts include:

    • Acts committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury,

    • For the purpose of intimidating a population,

    • Or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

    III. Academic Definitions

    1. Bruce Hoffman (Terrorism Scholar)

    “Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change.”

    2. Black’s Law Dictionary

    “The use of or threat to use violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.”

    IV. Key Elements of a Terrorist Attack

    Element Explanation
    Violence or threat Physical harm or the credible threat of such harm.
    Intent To intimidate or influence by fear or coercion.
    Target Often civilians, government institutions, or symbolic structures.
    Motive Political, religious, ideological, or ethnic motivations.
    Illegality Not sanctioned by state law; carried out by non-state actors.

    V. Difference Between Terrorism and Other Crimes

    Criteria Terrorism Other Crimes
    Intent To create fear and achieve ideological goals Often for personal gain
    Target Civilians/public institutions Individuals or property
    Motivation Political/Religious/Ideological Economic, personal, or emotional
    Effect Wide-scale social, political, or international impact Usually localized impact

    Case Studies

    1. Ajmal Kasab Case (26/11 Mumbai Attacks)

    1. Background of the 26/11 Mumbai Terror Attacks

    • Date: 26th – 29th November 2008

    • Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

    • Attackers: 10 trained terrorists from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based terrorist organization

    • Targets:

      • Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST)

      • Taj Mahal Palace Hotel

      • Oberoi-Trident Hotel

      • Leopold Café

      • Nariman (Jewish) House

      • Cama Hospital and others

    Casualties:

    • Civilians killed: 166

    • Injured: Over 300

    • Security personnel martyred: 20+

    2. Ajmal Amir Kasab: The Accused

    • Only surviving terrorist of the group.

    • Captured alive at Girgaum Chowpatty after a gunfight.

    • Hailing from Faridkot village, Pakistan.

    3. Legal Proceedings

    🔹 Trial Court: Sessions Court, Mumbai

    • Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Ajmal Amir Kasab & Others

    • Judge: M.L. Tahaliyani

    • Charges:

      • Murder (IPC Section 302)

      • Waging war against India (IPC Section 121)

      • Conspiracy (IPC Section 120B)

      • Terrorist acts under UAPA

      • Offences under the Arms Act, Explosives Act, Railways Act, etc.

    🔹 Evidence Presented:

    • CCTV footage from CST, Taj, Oberoi, and other sites

    • Eyewitness testimony

    • Confessional statement under CrPC Section 164

    • GPS and satellite phone data showing route from Pakistan

    • Phone intercepts from handlers in Pakistan

    • Kasab’s own confession, later retracted but corroborated

    4. Key Legal Findings

    • Kasab was held guilty of killing innocents, waging war, and criminal conspiracy.

    • The attack was found to be pre-planned and state-assisted.

    • Court acknowledged evidence of cross-border terrorism involving LeT and Pakistan-based handlers.

    5. Conviction and Sentence

    • May 6, 2010: Sentenced to death on five counts:

      • Waging war

      • Murder

      • Attempt to murder

      • Terrorism-related offences

      • Criminal conspiracy

    6. Appeals Process

     Bombay High Court:

    • Upheld death sentence (February 2011)

     Supreme Court of India:

    • Upheld all findings and rejected appeal (August 2012)

     Mercy Petition to President of India:

    • Rejected by President Pranab Mukherjee in November 2012

    7. Execution

    • Date: 21st November 2012

    • Location: Yerwada Central Jail, Pune

    • Codename: Operation X

    • Execution carried out secretly, maintaining high confidentiality for national security.

    8. Legal and Policy Significance

    🔸 Landmark in India’s Anti-Terror Jurisprudence:

    • Demonstrated how due process was upheld even for a foreign terrorist.

    • Proved India’s criminal justice system is fair, transparent, and robust.

    🔸 Led to Major Security Reforms:

    • Strengthening of NIA (National Investigation Agency)

    • Creation of NSG hubs in major cities

    • Improved coastal surveillance and anti-terror intelligence mechanisms

    9. Key Takeaways

    Legal Concept Application in Kasab Case
    Confession under CrPC 164 Used but corroborated with other evidence
    Terrorism & UAPA Section 15 (Terrorist Act), Section 16 (Punishment)
    Waging war against the State IPC Section 121 was invoked
    Fair trial rights Legal aid provided, proper defense allowed
    International Law Evidence of state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan raised diplomatically

    2. Pulwama Attack (2019):

    1. Background of the Pulwama Terror Attack

    • Date: 14th February 2019

    • Location: Lethpora, Pulwama district, Jammu & Kashmir, India

    • Target: Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy

    • Casualties:

      • 40 CRPF jawans martyred

      • Several others injured

    Modus Operandi

    • A vehicle-borne suicide bomber, Adil Ahmad Dar (a local militant), rammed an SUV loaded with 300 kg of explosives (including RDX) into a CRPF bus that was part of a 78-vehicle convoy on the Jammu-Srinagar highway.

    2. Claim of Responsibility

    • The Pakistan-based terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) claimed responsibility for the attack.

    • A video surfaced where the suicide bomber pledged allegiance to JeM and justified his actions on ideological grounds.

    3. Legal & Investigative Proceedings

    🔹 Investigation by National Investigation Agency (NIA)

    • A case was registered under the UAPA and IPC for:

      • Terrorist act (Section 15, UAPA)

      • Criminal conspiracy (120B, IPC)

      • Murder (302, IPC)

    • The NIA filed a 13,500-page chargesheet in August 2020.

    🔹 Key Accused

    • Masood Azhar (JeM chief)

    • Rauf Asghar (JeM operational commander)

    • Mohd Umar Farooq (Pakistani national and main handler)

    • Adil Ahmad Dar (suicide bomber)

    • Several local Kashmiri JeM operatives

    🔹 Evidence Collected

    • DNA and forensic matching of body parts

    • Recovered explosives residue (RDX traces)

    • Mobile communications, call records, WhatsApp chats

    • Confessional statements from arrested associates

    • Use of Pakistan-made products in the IED components

    4. Charges Invoked

    Law Relevant Section
    UAPA Sec 15 (terrorist act), Sec 18 (conspiracy), Sec 20 (membership of terrorist organization)
    IPC Sec 302 (murder), Sec 120B (criminal conspiracy), Sec 121 (waging war against the State)
    Explosive Substances Act Sections related to unlawful possession and use

    5. International Impact and Diplomatic Fallout

    🔸 India’s Response

    • India withdrew MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status to Pakistan.

    • Initiated strong diplomatic offensive globally to isolate Pakistan.

    • Approached UN, FATF, and other forums regarding Pakistan’s role.

    🔸 Balakot Airstrike (26 February 2019)

    • India conducted an airstrike inside Pakistan’s Balakot region, targeting a JeM training camp.

    • This was the first Indian airstrike beyond the LoC since 1971.

    6. FATF and Global Pressure on Pakistan

    • FATF (Financial Action Task Force) placed Pakistan on the Grey List due to terror financing.

    • Pressure to act against terror outfits like JeM and arrest Masood Azhar.

    • Pakistan was later forced to admit JeM’s role, albeit indirectly, in UN forums.

    7. Significance in Legal and National Security Context

    Area Impact
    Terror Law Enforcement Strengthened use of UAPA, NIA‘s mandate expanded
    Judicial Impact Led to swift framing of charges and better evidence collection protocols
    Legislative Reform Stimulated debate on maritime, cyber-terror, and cross-border terrorism laws
    International Law Raised questions on state-sponsored terrorism and accountability of nations harboring terrorists

    8. Educational & Exam Perspective

     Legal Issues:

    • Jurisdiction under anti-terror laws

    • Use of forensic and digital evidence

    • Applicability of UAPA and IPC in coordinated investigations

     Political/International Issues:

    • Sovereignty vs. self-defense (Balakot)

    • State responsibility in harboring terror groups

    • FATF and its legal influence on counter-terrorism financing.

    The Pulwama Terror Attack was not merely a tragic incident of mass murder but a defining moment in India’s counter-terrorism history. The attack exposed the growing threat of cross-border terrorism and the complex network of local radicalization and foreign orchestration. India’s legal response, particularly through the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), demonstrated a robust use of anti-terror laws while ensuring the collection of scientific and admissible evidence.

    Diplomatically, it marked a shift from passive condemnation to active international engagement, culminating in the Balakot airstrikes and global pressure on Pakistan through platforms like the UN and FATF. It further reinforced the need for coordinated legal reforms, international cooperation, and modernization of internal security apparatus to prevent such acts in the future.

    In essence, Pulwama stands as a stark reminder of the human and national cost of terrorism, and it has catalyzed both legal transformation and strategic assertiveness in India’s fight against terror.

    Conclusion:

    Terrorism, in all its forms, constitutes one of the gravest threats to the sovereignty, security, and unity of a nation. A terrorist attack, as defined under Indian law (UAPA) and international frameworks, is an act of violence committed with the intent to create fear, coerce governments, or propagate extremist ideologies. Such acts are unlawful, inhumane, and fundamentally incompatible with democratic values and the rule of law.

    The 26/11 Mumbai attacks, led by Ajmal Kasab and orchestrated by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, demonstrated how deeply organized terrorism could penetrate national defenses. Yet, India’s legal system ensured a fair, transparent, and timely trial, ultimately leading to Kasab’s conviction and execution — sending a strong message of zero tolerance toward terrorism.

    In contrast, the Pulwama attack (2019) marked a new dimension of suicide bombing using local recruits and cross-border handlers. The Indian response was multi-pronged: legally through NIA investigations and UAPA provisions, diplomatically through global isolation of Pakistan, and strategically through the Balakot airstrikes. It reshaped national policy on counter-terrorism and emphasized the role of international cooperation and financial sanctions via platforms like the FATF.

    Collectively, these incidents underscore the need for a strong anti-terror legislative framework, prompt judicial processes, and international solidarity to combat terrorism. India’s handling of both cases stands as a testament to its commitment to justice, national security, and the protection of democratic values.

judiciary, legal general knowledge, legal knowledge
| Tags: , , ,