The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, granted bail to a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) while raising a crucial question about the nature of terrorist acts. The bench, comprising Justices S.S. Sundar and Sunder Mohan, deliberated on whether a conspiracy to kill Hindu religious leaders could be classified as a terrorist activity under the UAPA.
The case involved Asif Musthaheen, who was accused of conspiring to attack Hindu religious leaders affiliated with the BJP and RSS. The prosecution claimed that this constituted a terrorist activity as defined under Sections 18 and 38(2) of the UAPA. However, the High Court observed,
“The evidence discloses that the conspiracy was to attack certain religious leaders. The respondent has not spelt out how that would amount to a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA.”
The Court further elaborated that for an act to be considered under Section 15 of the UAPA, it must be executed with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India, or with an intent to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country. The bench stated,
“The question as to whether the killing of Hindu religious leaders by itself can constitute a terrorist act is debatable.”
The Court also noted that while the validity of the sanction for prosecution under UAPA would be examined during the trial, the delay in obtaining it was a sufficient ground to waive the prohibition on bail imposed by Section 43 D(5) of the Act. The bench remarked,
“Even assuming that the materials collected by the prosecution may ultimately lead to a conviction, the detention pending trial cannot be indefinite.”
Musthaheen, who had been in incarceration for the past 17 months, was granted conditional bail with the directive to stay in Erode and appear before the trial court daily at 10.30 am until further orders. The prosecution’s allegation that Musthaheen wanted to become a member of IS and conspired with another accused, purportedly a member of the terror group, to kill Hindu leaders, was not concurred with by the bench. The evidence, according to the Court, did not indicate that the accused joined IS or that the second accused was a member of the terror group.
This ruling by the Madras High Court brings into focus the nuanced interpretation of what constitutes a terrorist act under the UAPA, highlighting the need for careful consideration of the intent and impact of alleged acts of terrorism.
Also read- Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL On King Nishadraj-Lord Ram Statue Depiction (lawchakra.in)
