NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that instilling fear to deter people from cooperating with law enforcement can qualify as a terrorist act, even if the accused is not convicted under specific anti-terror legislation.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti said that the killing of an army informer—intended to create a climate of fear—amounts to terrorism, regardless of whether the conviction falls under an anti-terror law. The observation came while hearing a remission plea filed by Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, who has served 27 years in prison for the murder of three civilians in Jammu & Kashmir.
Bhat contended that since he was convicted only under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act—and not under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA)—his actions should not be considered acts of terror. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Bhat, argued that the trial and high courts had not invoked TADA and found no grounds to treat the case as terrorism-related.
However, the bench disagreed with this reasoning. “If an act is done to instill fear among people so that they avoid supporting the law, then it clearly bears the hallmarks of a terrorist act,” the judges said. “You cannot create havoc in society and then expect to be eligible for remission just because the case wasn’t tried under a specific anti-terror law.”
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, appearing for the J&K government, supported the stance, noting that weapons, including a grenade launcher, were recovered from the crime scene. He asserted that the killings were part of a calculated attempt to terrorize and were far more serious than simple murder.
The state government maintained that individuals serving life sentences for terrorist acts are not eligible for remission under the existing policy. The Court agreed that Bhat’s actions had a clear objective: to deter others from assisting the army and authorities, and thereby disrupt lawful functioning through fear.
Despite this, the Court permitted Bhat’s counsel to legally challenge the Jammu & Kashmir remission policy within the current proceedings.
