SC widens UAPA ambit: Planning, chakka jams can count as ‘terror act’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that an "act of terror" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is not confined only to the final execution but extends to those who contribute to the commission of such acts through planning, coordination, mobilisation or other forms of concerted action.

Section 15 of the UAPA defines a terrorist act as an act done "with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India."

However, the provision qualifies that striking terror is by use of "bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or any other means."

While refusing bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, in its judgment spanning 142 pages, referred to Section 15(1)(a) of the 1967 Act to note the residuary phrase of "by another means".

The top court said the statutory intent was not to limit the definition of terror to the use of weapons, asserting that emphasis is not solely on the instrumentality but the design, intent and effect of the act.

"Confining Section 15 to only conventional modes of violence will be to unduly narrow its ambit contrary to plain language," it said.

"The means by which such acts may be committed or not confined to the use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone.

"Parliament has consciously employed the expression court by 'any other means of whatever nature' which expression cannot be rendered otiose. The statutory emphasis is thus not solely on the instrumentality employed but the design, intent and effect of the act," the court said.

The apex court said a 'terrorist act' under the UAPA extended to the disruption of essential supplies leading to economic insecurity and destabilisation of civic life even if violence was not committed in the process.

Criminal liability is not confined only to the final execution, but extends to those who contribute to the commission of such acts through planning, coordination, mobilisation, or other forms of concerted action, the court said.

"The prosecution case, as placed before this Court, does not proceed on the footing that the protests merely inconvenienced commuters or strained policing resources. It proceeds on the footing that a deliberate method of agitation was conceived and executed, namely sustained and replicated 'chakka jams' at strategically selected arterial locations, with the object of choking movement across the National Capital, disrupting essential services, and overwhelming the administrative capacity of the State," it said.

The top court said offences covered under the UAPA go beyond the ordinary offences and affect the security and integrity of the nation.

A terrorist act is not an isolated, solitary and final act; it was the culmination of "organised, sustained and conspiratorial activities unfolding over time", it added.

The apex court said not every disruption of traffic, not every blockade, and not every law-and-order incident engages the statutory framework of the UAPA.

"The statute is attracted only where the conduct alleged, taken cumulatively, is capable of being understood as threatening the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of the nation, or as creating a climate of fear and paralysis transcending ordinary disorder," it said.

The February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.

The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.

The accused moved the apex court, challenging the Delhi High Court's September 2, 2025, order denying them bail in the larger conspiracy case of the riots.