Court Rules Mere Association With Terrorist Group Insufficient for Section 20 Charge; Emphasizes Need for Evidence of Active Involvement in Terrorist Act
In a significant judgment dated September 17, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court partially allowed the petition filed by Dawood, accused in a terror-related case, and set aside the charge framed against him under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court, however, upheld the charges under Section 13 UAPA for advocating unlawful activities and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for destruction of evidence.
Dawood had challenged the order of the trial court which charged him under Sections 13 and 20 UAPA, and Section 201 IPC, alleging that the trial court erred in framing the charge under Section 20 UAPA without sufficient material indicating that he was involved in a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner contended that mere membership or association with a terrorist gang or organization is not enough to attract Section 20, and there was no evidence of his participation in the actual terrorist act.
The prosecution case revolved around the murder of non-local individuals in Srinagar, allegedly orchestrated by members of proscribed terrorist outfits The Resistance Front (TRF) and Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Dawood was alleged to have been radicalized after reading the book "Milestones," associated with jihadist ideology, and was found to be in close contact with other accused involved in the conspiracy. He was accused of collecting and disposing of evidence related to the weapons used in the attack.
The trial court had discharged Dawood from charges under Sections 302 IPC and certain UAPA provisions (Sections 16, 18, and 23), but charged him under Sections 13 and 20 UAPA and Section 201 IPC. Dawood challenged the framing of charges under Sections 13 and 20 UAPA, especially the latter, arguing that it lacked sanction and sufficient material.
The High Court examined the legal principles governing framing of charges and the specific provisions of UAPA. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra (2023), which clarified that Section 20 UAPA requires evidence of the accused's involvement in a "terrorist act" as defined in Section 15. Mere membership or association with a terrorist organization, without participation in terrorist acts, cannot sustain a charge under Section 20.
Applying this principle, the High Court found no material in the charge sheet or investigation record indicating Dawood's direct involvement in a terrorist act. Therefore, the charge under Section 20 UAPA was set aside as legally untenable.
On the other hand, the court upheld the charge under Section 13 UAPA for advocating and inciting unlawful activities. The court noted sufficient evidence including videos showing Dawood promoting the ideology of proscribed terrorist groups, possession of the book "Milestones," witness statements, and digital data recovered from his devices. The charge under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence was also upheld, supported by forensic reports confirming Dawood's involvement in concealing evidence.
Regarding the procedural objections on sanction for prosecution under Section 13 UAPA, the court held that the sanctioning authority had properly reviewed the evidence and accorded sanction under related sections. The alteration of charge to include Section 13 was permissible under law since it was based on the same facts.
The court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and clarified that its observations were not final on merits but related only to the framing of charges.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that stringent anti-terror laws like UAPA must be applied with caution, ensuring that charges under serious sections like Section 20 are backed by clear evidence of active terrorist acts, and not merely on association or possession of radical literature.
Bottom Line:
Framing of charges under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, requires evidence showing that the accused is involved in or has indulged in a "terrorist act" as defined under Section 15 of the Act. Mere affiliation or association with a terrorist gang or organization is insufficient.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 2(1)(k), 2(1)(m), 2(1)(o), 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 45(1)(i), 45(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 201, 302, 307, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 239(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 216(5) Cr.P.C.)
