The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the high-profile 2020 Delhi riots case. The court's decision hinged on an expansive interpretation of what constitutes a "terrorist act" under the nation's primary anti-terror legislation, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Core of the Court's Reasoning: Section 15 UAPA
At the heart of the Supreme Court's ruling lies UAPA Section 15, which defines terrorism in exceptionally broad terms. The provision goes beyond listing specific weapons like explosives or firearms. It crucially includes acts committed through "any other means," a phrase that has drawn sustained criticism for granting investigating agencies wide discretion. This allows the UAPA to be invoked in cases that may not align with conventional understandings of terrorism, such as mass casualty attacks.
This broad application is not new. The law has been used in a range of cases, from the October 2020 arrest of journalist Siddique Kappan to the 2023 detention of NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha and the booking of Kashmir University students for allegedly raising slogans. The prosecution of Umar Khalid for his alleged role in the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests remains a prominent example of this trend.
The Bipartisan Evolution of India's Anti-Terror Law
While often associated with the current government's security policies, the UAPA's journey to its present form has been incremental and bipartisan. Enacted in 1967, the original law did not address terrorism at all. It was designed to counter unlawful activities threatening India's sovereignty, stemming from recommendations made by the National Integration Council formed under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
The first major shift came in 2004 under the UPA government, which introduced a new chapter specifically for "Punishment for Terrorist Activities." This amendment, following the repeal of POTA, defined terrorist acts as those involving explosives, firearms, or poisons intended to threaten India's security or strike terror among people.
The Post-26/11 Expansion and Recent Changes
The most consequential changes arrived after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The 2008 amendment inserted the pivotal phrase "by any other means" into Section 15, vastly broadening the definition. It also extended police and judicial custody periods, made bail exceedingly difficult by requiring courts to deny it if accusations appear "prima facie true," and reversed the burden of proof in certain circumstances.
Further expansion occurred in 2012, again under UPA, bringing threats to "economic security"—covering financial stability, food, and energy security—within terrorism's ambit. The most recent 2019 amendments under the Modi government allowed the designation of individuals as terrorists (previously only organizations), enhanced the National Investigation Agency's powers, and added international conventions to its schedule.
The Supreme Court's recent bail denial underscores the powerful and sweeping nature of the UAPA in its current form. The ruling highlights the legal challenges faced by those accused under this statute, where the broad definition of terrorism and stringent bail provisions continue to shape outcomes in cases involving dissent, protest, and allegations of threatening national integrity.
