A ‘terrorist act’ is not just finale, but culmination of conspiratorial activities: SC, Pg13

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court clarified that a "terrorist act" under the UAPA includes the build-up to violence, not just the final act.
• The court referenced Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA, emphasizing that the definition of terror is not limited to the use of weapons.
• The Delhi Police argued that the accused in the Delhi riots case conspired for "regime change" through armed rebellion and disruption of essential commodities, constituting a "terrorist act" under the UAPA.
• The court stated that disrupting essential supplies, leading to economic insecurity and destabilization of civic life, also falls under the definition of a "terrorist act," even without direct violence.

Detailed Insights:

• The Supreme Court emphasized that confining Section 15 to conventional violence would narrow its scope against the law's intent.
• The petitioners argued they didn't participate in the actual violence during the 2020 Delhi riots.
• The court noted that offenses under the UAPA affect national security and integrity, going beyond ordinary crimes.
• A "terrorist act" involves organized, sustained, and conspiratorial activities over time, not just a single event.
• Bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is more stringent due to the unique nature of offenses under the Act.

Key Concepts Involved:

• UAPA (Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act): Indian law aimed at preventing unlawful activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India.
• Terrorist Act: As defined under UAPA, includes acts intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror in the people.
• Section 43D(5) of UAPA: Sets stringent conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offenses under the UAPA.