0.0 Context
0.0.1 The Supreme Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots case, relying on the expansive statutory definition of “terrorist act” under UAPA.

0.1 Original scope of UAPA (1967)
0.1.1 The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to deal with “unlawful activities” threatening the sovereignty and integrity of India.
0.1.2 The original law did not address terrorism at all.
0.1.3 Its origins lie in the National Integration Council (NIC) formed in 1961 to address communalism, casteism, regionalism and linguistic chauvinism.

0.2 Constitutional background
0.2.1 In 1962, the NIC recommended “reasonable restrictions” on fundamental rights in the interest of national integrity.
0.2.2 This led to the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, restricting freedoms of speech, expression, assembly and association.
0.2.3 The UAPA was enacted to operationalise these constitutional changes.

0.3 Terrorism added to UAPA (2004)
0.3.1 A decisive shift occurred in 2004, when Parliament amended UAPA to explicitly deal with terrorist activities.
0.3.2 The Act’s title was altered to include “prevention of terrorist activities”, and Chapter IV — Punishment for Terrorist Activities was introduced.
0.3.3 This followed the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA).

0.4 Expansion of definition under Section 15
0.4.1 Section 15 defined terrorism to include acts involving explosives, firearms, lethal weapons, poisons, chemicals or hazardous substances.
0.4.2 Terrorism included acts likely to cause death, injury, or damage to property.
0.4.3 Crucially, acts committed “by any other means” were also included, vastly broadening the scope.

0.5 Post-26/11 expansion (2008 amendments)
0.5.1 After the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Parliament substantially expanded UAPA.
0.5.2 The phrase “any other means” was inserted into Section 15, allowing virtually any act deemed disruptive or threatening to public order to be treated as terrorism.
0.5.3 Procedural safeguards were tightened, extending police custody from 15 to 30 days and judicial custody from 90 to 180 days.

0.6 Bail and burden of proof
0.6.1 Anticipatory bail was barred and regular bail made exceptional.
0.6.2 Courts were directed to deny bail if the accusation appeared “prima facie true”, a standard heavily reliant on the prosecution’s version.
0.6.3 Under Section 43E, if an accused was found in possession of arms allegedly used in a terrorist act, the court was required to presume guilt.

0.7 Economic offences as terrorism (2012 amendment)
0.7.1 In 2012, UAPA expanded terrorism to include threats to the “economic security” of the country.
0.7.2 Economic security was defined broadly to include financial stability, food security, energy security, livelihood security, and environmental security.
0.7.3 Offences such as production, smuggling, and circulation of counterfeit Indian currency were designated as terrorist acts.

0.8 Liability of organisations and individuals
0.8.1 Sections 22A, 22B and 22C extended liability to companies, trusts and societies.
0.8.2 Office-bearers could be held criminally responsible unless they proved lack of knowledge.

0.9 2019 amendments
0.9.1 In 2019, the Centre amended UAPA to allow designation of individuals as terrorists, not just organisations.
0.9.2 Earlier, only organisations could be designated.
0.9.3 The amendment empowered the NIA to seize properties and allowed inspectors, instead of deputy superintendents, to probe terror cases.
0.9.4 The amendment was criticised for undermining the presumption of innocence.

0.10 Core issue highlighted by the Court’s reasoning
0.10.1 The Supreme Court’s reasoning hinged on Section 15, which defines terrorism in exceptionally broad terms.
0.10.2 The provision goes beyond specifying arms and includes acts committed “through any other means”, enabling wide prosecutorial discretion.