SC Clarifies Terror Definition, Emphasizes Witness Protection Against State
Supreme Court highlights the need for a precise terror definition to protect witnesses from state overreach.
Photo by engin akyurt
Key Facts
Supreme Court observed on terror definition and witness protection
Date: January 5, 2026
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath
Precise terror definition needed to protect witnesses from state misuse
Concerns over broad definitions in UAPA
Need for robust witness protection framework
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper 2: Polity & Governance - Fundamental Rights (Article 19, 21, 22), Judiciary (Role of Supreme Court, Judicial Review), Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, Criminal Justice System.
GS Paper 3: Internal Security - Anti-terror laws (UAPA), Witness Protection, National Security vs. Human Rights, Challenges to Internal Security.
Constitutional Principles: Due Process vs. Procedure Established by Law, Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Rights.
Visual Insights
Evolution of Anti-Terror Laws & Witness Protection in India
This timeline illustrates key legislative amendments to anti-terror laws (UAPA) and the development of witness protection mechanisms, culminating in the Supreme Court's recent observation.
India's anti-terror legal framework has evolved significantly, often in response to major terror incidents. Simultaneously, the judiciary has pushed for stronger witness protection to ensure fair trials and uphold the rule of law. The latest SC observation reflects an ongoing judicial scrutiny of these critical areas.
- 1967Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) enacted
- 2003Malimath Committee Report highlights need for Witness Protection
- 2004UAPA amended (post-POTA repeal), expanded scope
- 2008UAPA amended (post-26/11 Mumbai attacks), strengthened provisions
- 2012UAPA amended (included economic offenses, cyber terrorism)
- 2018Supreme Court formulates Witness Protection Scheme under Article 142
- 2019UAPA amended, empowering govt to designate individuals as 'terrorists'
- Jan 5, 2026SC emphasizes precise 'terror' definition & robust Witness Protection
More Information
Background
India's journey with anti-terror legislation has been marked by a continuous struggle to balance national security with civil liberties. The earliest significant law was the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), enacted in 1985 and renewed periodically until its lapse in 1995. TADA was highly controversial due to its draconian provisions, including extended detention periods, admissibility of confessions made to police, and reversal of the presumption of innocence, leading to widespread allegations of misuse.
Following TADA's repeal, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was enacted in 2002 in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the Indian Parliament attack. POTA, too, faced similar criticisms regarding its broad definitions and potential for abuse, leading to its repeal in 2004. Subsequently, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), originally enacted in 1967 to deal with secessionist activities, was significantly amended in 2004, 2008, and 2012 to incorporate many provisions of the repealed POTA, effectively making it India's primary anti-terror law.
These amendments broadened the definition of 'terrorist act' and 'terrorist organization', increased the powers of investigation agencies, and made bail more stringent, setting the stage for the current debates.
Latest Developments
In recent years, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has continued to be a focal point of legal and political debate. A significant amendment in 2019 allowed the central government to designate individuals as 'terrorists' without requiring them to be part of a 'terrorist organization', a move widely criticized by civil liberties groups for potentially violating fundamental rights and due process. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), established in 2008, has seen its powers expanded, including jurisdiction over cases outside India, further centralizing anti-terror investigations.
Judicial pronouncements, particularly concerning bail under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, have been crucial. The Supreme Court, in cases like 'Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb' (2021), has emphasized that the stringent bail conditions under UAPA should not be an absolute bar to bail, especially when trials are prolonged, thereby reasserting the importance of personal liberty. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, formulated by the Supreme Court, remains a critical framework, though its implementation faces challenges. Future developments are likely to involve further judicial scrutiny of UAPA's provisions, potential legislative amendments to address definitional ambiguities, and efforts to strengthen the witness protection mechanism, possibly drawing from international best practices and recommendations from law reform commissions.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. With reference to anti-terror legislation in India, consider the following statements: 1. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was originally enacted to deal with secessionist activities. 2. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) was repealed and many of its provisions were subsequently incorporated into the UAPA. 3. The 2019 amendment to UAPA allows the central government to designate an individual as a terrorist without requiring them to be part of a terrorist organization. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: D
Statement 1 is correct: UAPA was enacted in 1967 to deal with unlawful associations and secessionist activities. Statement 2 is correct: POTA was repealed in 2004, and many of its stringent provisions were subsequently incorporated into UAPA through amendments in 2004 and later years. Statement 3 is correct: The 2019 amendment to UAPA empowered the central government to designate individuals as terrorists, which was a significant change from the earlier provision that only allowed organizations to be designated.
2. In the context of the Supreme Court's observations on witness protection, consider the following statements regarding the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018: 1. The scheme was formulated by the Parliament of India through a specific legislation. 2. It provides for three categories of witnesses based on the threat perception. 3. The Witness Protection Fund is to be created by the State Governments. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, was formulated by the Supreme Court of India, not by Parliament through specific legislation. It was approved by the SC and directed to be implemented by all states and Union Territories. Statement 2 is correct: The scheme categorizes witnesses into three categories (Category A - high threat, Category B - moderate threat, Category C - low threat) based on the threat assessment. Statement 3 is correct: The scheme mandates that each State/UT shall have a Witness Protection Fund, which shall be operated by the Department of Home/Finance of the State/UT.
3. Which of the following statements best describes the principle of 'procedure established by law' as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, particularly in the context of anti-terror laws?
- A.It implies that a law must be fair, just, and reasonable, even if it is duly enacted by the legislature.
- B.It means that a person can be deprived of life or personal liberty only according to the procedure laid down by law, irrespective of the fairness of the law itself.
- C.It grants the judiciary the power to declare any law unconstitutional if it violates the spirit of natural justice.
- D.It ensures that the executive cannot act arbitrarily without legislative sanction, but does not question the validity of the law itself.
Show Answer
Answer: B
Option B correctly describes 'procedure established by law'. This principle, primarily associated with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, means that a person's life or personal liberty can be curtailed if there is a law prescribing a procedure for it, and that procedure has been duly followed. It does not inherently question the fairness or justness of the law itself. This is in contrast to 'due process of law' (Option A and C hint at this), which allows the judiciary to examine whether a law is fair, just, and reasonable. While the Indian Supreme Court has, over time, moved towards incorporating elements of 'due process' through interpretations (e.g., Maneka Gandhi case), the literal constitutional phrasing remains 'procedure established by law'. Option D is partially correct but doesn't fully capture the essence of the principle regarding deprivation of life/liberty.
4. Regarding the definition of 'terror' and international efforts to combat terrorism, consider the following statements: 1. The United Nations has adopted a universally accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. 2. The Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) was proposed by India to provide a legal framework for combating terrorism. 3. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) primarily focuses on combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect: Despite numerous efforts, the United Nations has not yet adopted a universally accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism, primarily due to disagreements among member states on what constitutes 'terrorism' versus 'self-determination' or 'freedom struggle'. Statement 2 is correct: India proposed the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) in 1996 at the UN, aiming to provide a universal legal framework to combat terrorism. Statement 3 is correct: The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an intergovernmental organization founded in 1989 on the initiative of the G7 to develop policies to combat money laundering and, later, terrorist financing.