Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation

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.

1. Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 28 Oct 2021 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2021) 10 SCC 598

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Judgement of Main Case order-11.pdf 2021-10-28 labelled (order-10 same date is pronouncement ROP — skip). Crl.A. 1302/2021 + 1303/2021 (SLP(Crl) 2415/2021 + 5931/2021). Abhay S. Oka REPORTABLE, digitally signed 2021.10.28. DATE-CHECK false positive on Special Court / arrest / birth fact dates (2020-09-09 / 2019-11-01 / 1995-08-05); body is the named 28 Oct 2021 merits (same Ghisalal/Swapnanjali/Patil/Kymal pattern). Isolate: UAPA 38/39 require intention to further the terrorist organisation's activities; mere association or support is not enough. s.13 (Ch.III) is outside Ch.IV/VI so 43D(5) does not apply. s.20 is a distinct, more serious membership offence requiring a gang/org involved in a s.15 terrorist act — not invoked on the chargesheet; do not map 20 as decided-under. Do not pad 15 (no allegation of a terrorist act) or 43D (Najeeb filled). Do not pad NIA 21 (appeal vehicle only).

   On this section: UAPA 39 support is attracted only if the specified acts are done with intention to further the terrorist organisation's activities; support without that mens rea is not enough (Thwaha Fasal).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Oinam Lukhoi Singh vs The State of Manipur

   High Court 22 Feb 2022 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   For an accused to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for harboring a terrorist, there must be: (1) Knowledge that the person is a terrorist; (2) Intention to help the person evade apprehension; and (3) Actual harboring, concealment, or attempt to harbor or conceal. Merely giving a lift to an unknown person without knowledge of their terrorist connections and without any attempt to help them evade apprehension does not constitute the offense. Similarly, for Section 39 of UAPA to apply, the support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with the intention to further the activities of a terrorist organization. Confessional statements made to police without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused unless the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is satisfactory and the co-accused's confession is used only as corroborative evidence. When no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings have been pending for an unreasonable period without progress, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.

   On this section: Defines offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization. The court held that support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organization.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Javaid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir

   High Court 03 Apr 2025 Persuasive (High Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When an accused is charged with offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the stringent bail provisions of Section 43-D(5) apply, which requires the court to be satisfied on perusal of the case diary or report that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true before bail can be granted. At the bail stage, the court cannot minutely appreciate the evidence or go into intricate questions of whether the offences are made out, as such appreciation is expected at the trial stage. If the trial court has properly considered all aspects of the case and rejected bail, the High Court will not interfere unless there is illegality or perversity in the order.

   On this section: Offence relating to support given to terrorist organisation - punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or fine or both; falls under Chapter VI

   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.