When Can Speech Be Considered a Terrorist Act Under UAPA?
Share on:
Introduction
India guarantees the right to free speech and peaceful protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. At the same time, acts that threaten national security, public order, or economic stability can be criminalized under anti-terror laws. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) defines “terrorist acts” in broad terms. Recently, the Supreme Court examined whether certain speeches and protest activities could fall under Section 15 of UAPA, sparking debate on the boundaries of lawful dissent. This article explains the law, judicial interpretations, and how speech may be treated under UAPA.
Section 15 of UAPA: Definition of a Terrorist Act
Section 15 defines a terrorist act as one that:
- Threatens or is likely to threaten India’s sovereignty, unity, or integrity;
- Strikes terror or is likely to strike terror among people or any section of the population;
- Is committed using firearms, explosives, chemical substances, or any other means; and
- Results in, or is likely to result in, death, injury, property damage, disruption of essential services, or economic instability.
- The phrase “any other means of whatever nature” is crucial. It means that the law can cover acts that are not traditional violence, including organized disruption or coordinated activities that may threaten public safety or national interests.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation
The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in the context of bail applications for individuals accused in the 2020 Delhi riots. Key points from the Court’s observations:
- Intent Over Method
The Court emphasized that the law focuses on the intent and purpose of the act. Even non-violent conduct could be included if it forms part of a plan to disrupt essential services or public order. - Prima Facie Assessment
At the bail stage, courts evaluate whether the prosecution’s claims, if taken at face value, could amount to a terrorist act. This does not determine guilt but assesses whether Section 15 may apply. - Speech and Protest
Allegedly inflammatory speeches or calls for disruptive actions may fall under UAPA when they are linked to a larger conspiracy alleged to threaten critical infrastructure or public safety.
Balancing Speech and Security
While Section 15 is broad, ordinary protest and speech remain protected:
- Constitutional Rights: Peaceful expression and assembly are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
- Reasonable Restrictions: The law allows restrictions for sovereignty, security, public order, and safety.
- Threshold for Criminality: Speech or protest only qualifies as a terrorist act if it is part of a plan with potential to cause serious disruption or threat to the nation.
This distinction ensures that lawful dissent is not criminalized while addressing activities that genuinely endanger national security.
Key Takeaways
- Broad Interpretation: Section 15 covers acts beyond conventional violence if done with intent to threaten security or disrupt essential services.
- Context Matters: Mere speech or protest is not automatically criminal; it must be connected to an alleged plan causing serious impact.
- Judicial Safeguards: Courts examine allegations carefully to balance constitutional freedoms with security concerns.
- Prima Facie Evaluation: Courts may deny bail if the prosecution’s material suggests a potential terrorist act, but final determination occurs at trial.
Conclusion
Section 15 of UAPA allows a wide interpretation of “terrorist acts,” extending beyond traditional violence to include acts that may disrupt public life or threaten national interests. Supreme Court rulings highlight that intent, coordination, and potential consequences are key in deciding whether speech or protest qualifies under UAPA. Importantly, constitutional protections for peaceful expression remain intact, ensuring that legitimate dissent is not treated as terrorism. This approach reflects a careful balance between national security and democratic freedoms in India.
