Punishment for terrorist act

In force From 30 Dec 1967 Act 37 of 1967 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 37 of 1967 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 30 Dec 1967 In force 30 Dec 1967 Instruments 3

Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 deals with punishment for terrorist act. Whoever commits a terrorist act shall,-- (a) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine; The Act came into force on 30 Dec 1967.

¹[16. Punishment for terrorist act--(1) Whoever commits a terrorist act shall,--
(a) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.]
Section 16, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Act 37 of 1967).

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

Abdul Salam v. National Investigation Agency

High Court 13 Apr 2018 Persuasive (High Court) Reportable Crl.A. No. 460 of 2017 (Kerala FB)

Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

Final Order order-1.pdf 2018-04-13 DATE VERIFIED. Full Bench A.M. Shaffique + P. Ubaid + P. Somarajan JJ. Crl.A. 460/2017. Isolate: UAPA s.16 punishment for terrorist act — production/smuggling/circulation of high-quality counterfeit Indian currency committed before 1.2.2013 is not punishable as a terrorist act (Art. 20(1); Shareef v. State overruled). Leading HC FB. Distinctive (Abdul Salam, NIA, fake currency). Map 16 only — 15 already Tanha; 18 already Thwaha/Tanha. Tirki is not UAPA 16.

On this section: UAPA s.16 does not punish as a terrorist act HQ counterfeit-currency offences committed before 1.2.2013; Art. 20(1) bars retrospectivity (Abdul Salam FB; Shareef overruled).

Read the full order on eCourts India
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi

High Court 13 Feb 2013 Persuasive (High Court)

Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.

On this section: Petitioner was charged under these sections in the same FIR, indicating involvement in unlawful activities.

Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Made under this section, and citing it

3 instruments name this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.

All subordinate legislation

Questions about Section 16

What have the courts held on Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?

Abdul Salam v. National Investigation Agency (13 Apr 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: UAPA s.16 does not punish as a terrorist act HQ counterfeit-currency offences committed before 1.2.2013; Art. 20(1) bars retrospectivity (Abdul Salam FB; Shareef overruled). Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2013 to 2018.

How do I find court cases under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Uapa 16, section 16 Uapa, section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Salam v. National Investigation Agency (13 Apr 2018).

What should I read with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and has it changed?

3 instruments name it without being made under it, most recently The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) had declared the LTTE to be an unlawful association vide notification of the Govt. of India in the MHA number S.O. 1272 (E) dated 14.05.2014 (2014), then Investigation of High Quality Counterfeit Indian Currency Offences Rules, 2013 (2013).

When did Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act come into force?

Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, cited as Uapa 16, came into force on 30 Dec 1967, having been enacted on 30 Dec 1967. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.