Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) -
- A 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of UAPA is defined solely by the use of weapons like bombs, firearms, or explosives.
- The Court has held that sustained and organised acts like road blockades ('chakka jam'), intended to threaten national integrity, can prima facie fall within the ambit of a 'terrorist act'.
- For granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, if the accusations against the accused appear prima facie true, bail must ordinarily be denied.
- The defence argument that 'any other means' in Section 15 must be narrowly interpreted to include only violent means was categorically accepted by the Supreme Court.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Explanation - Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) defines a terrorist act as one carried out with intent to threaten India's unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty, or to strike terror among people. The provision lists methods such as bombs, explosives, firearms, or inflammable substances, and also adds a broader clause—"or any other means". The prosecution argued that an alleged "chakka jam" (road blockade) planned by the accused could fall under "any other means", even if it did not involve conventional weapons, because of its intended impact and consequences. The Court rejected the defence argument that "any other means" must be narrowly interpreted to include only other violent means (Statement 4 is incorrect). The Court held that sustained choking of arterial roads and systemic disruption of civic life can amount to calibrated acts threatening India's unity and integrity, thus prima facie falling within the ambit of a terrorist act (Statement 2 is correct). Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is barred if accusations appear prima facie true (Statement 3 is correct). Statement 1 is incorrect because the definition is not "solely" by the use of weapons; it includes "any other means" likely to cause death or injuries or damage property, etc.
Explanation - Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) defines a terrorist act as one carried out with intent to threaten India's unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty, or to strike terror among people. The provision lists methods such as bombs, explosives, firearms, or inflammable substances, and also adds a broader clause—"or any other means". The prosecution argued that an alleged "chakka jam" (road blockade) planned by the accused could fall under "any other means", even if it did not involve conventional weapons, because of its intended impact and consequences. The Court rejected the defence argument that "any other means" must be narrowly interpreted to include only other violent means (Statement 4 is incorrect). The Court held that sustained choking of arterial roads and systemic disruption of civic life can amount to calibrated acts threatening India's unity and integrity, thus prima facie falling within the ambit of a terrorist act (Statement 2 is correct). Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is barred if accusations appear prima facie true (Statement 3 is correct). Statement 1 is incorrect because the definition is not "solely" by the use of weapons; it includes "any other means" likely to cause death or injuries or damage property, etc.