The Terrorist Act in the Sanhita
Chapter Twenty-Seven
Syllabus topic 1, "Offences under Indian Penal Code"
Pages 123 to 127 of 802
In one line
Section 113 puts terrorism into the ordinary penal code of India, and it ends with an unusual instruction: a police officer of a stated rank decides whether a case goes under this section or under the special anti-terrorism Act.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: by section 113(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India, or with the intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in a foreign country, by any of the means in clauses (a) to (c), commits a terrorist act.
Why it is in the Sanhita at all
Terrorism has been dealt with by special Acts since 1985. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act ran from 1985 to 1995, the Prevention of Terrorism Act from 2002 to 2004, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, amended in 2004 and since, has carried the field ever since.
Section 113 does something none of those did. It writes the offence into the general penal statute, so terrorism becomes an offence under the ordinary code and not only under a special law with a special procedure.
That creates an overlap Parliament chose to manage rather than avoid. Both section 113 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act now cover the same conduct, and the final Explanation to section 113 says who decides which is used.
The provision itself
The intent, in the opening words of section 113(1). An act done with the intent to threaten, or likely to threaten, the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India; or with the intent to strike terror, or likely to strike terror, in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
Clause (a), the means and the results. By using bombs, dynamite or other explosive or inflammable substance, firearms or other lethal weapons, poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals, any other substance whether biological, radioactive, nuclear or otherwise of a hazardous nature, or any other means of whatever nature, to cause or likely to cause death of or injury to any person; loss of, damage to or destruction of property; and, among the other results listed, damage or destruction of property in India or abroad used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, a State Government or their agencies.
Clause (b). Overawing by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, or attempting to do so, or causing or attempting to cause the death of any public functionary.
The Terrorist Act in the Sanhita
Clause (c). Detaining, kidnapping or abducting any person and threatening to kill or injure that person, or doing any other act, in order to compel the Government of India, a State Government, the Government of a foreign country, an international or inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act.
The Explanation to sub-section (1) defines "public functionary" as the constitutional authorities or any other functionary notified as such in the Official Gazette by the Central Government, and defines "counterfeit Indian currency".
Section 113(2), the punishment. Where the offence has resulted in the death of any person, death or imprisonment for life and fine. In any other case, not less than five years extending to imprisonment for life, and fine.
Section 113(3) to (7). Conspiring, attempting, advocating, abetting, advising, inciting or knowingly facilitating a terrorist act or any preparatory act: five years to imprisonment for life, and fine. Organising a training camp or recruiting: the same. Membership of an organisation involved in a terrorist act: up to imprisonment for life and fine. Voluntarily harbouring or concealing a person known to have committed a terrorist act: three years to imprisonment for life and fine, with a proviso exempting the offender's spouse. Knowingly possessing property derived from a terrorist act: up to imprisonment for life and fine.
The concluding Explanation. "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police shall decide whether to register the case under this section or under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967)."
Broken down: the structure of the offence
An intent, then a means, then a result. The opening words set the intent, clauses (a) to (c) set the means, and within clause (a) the sub-clauses set the results. All three layers are needed.
"Or likely to" runs alongside every intent. The section is satisfied by an act likely to threaten the listed interests or likely to strike terror, without proof that the accused intended it, which is a significant widening.
"Economic security" is new to this formula. Adding it to unity, integrity, sovereignty and security brings within terrorism acts aimed at the economy rather than at persons or the State's authority.
The reach is not confined to India. Striking terror in the people of "any foreign country" is within the opening words, and clause (a) covers damage to property in a foreign country used for the defence of India.
The Explanation about registration is the most examinable line
It is unusual for a penal section to say who chooses the statute. Ordinarily the choice of provision is a matter of prosecutorial judgment, reviewable by a court, and no section says who makes it.
The Terrorist Act in the Sanhita
Here the Sanhita names an officer and a rank. An officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police decides whether to register under section 113 or under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Why the choice matters enormously. The special Act carries its own procedure: a longer period for investigation, a stricter bail provision, and the machinery for declaring an organisation unlawful or terrorist. A case registered under section 113 alone is investigated and tried under the ordinary procedure of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
So a decision taken by a police officer settles which procedural regime the accused faces. That is the criticism the provision attracts, and it should be stated in any answer about it.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Section 113 | Section 111, organised crime | |
|---|---|---|
| The object | Threatening the State's interests or striking terror | Direct or indirect material benefit |
| Pattern required | No | Yes, more than one charge-sheet in ten years |
| Where death results | Death or imprisonment for life, and fine | Death or imprisonment for life, and fine not less than ten lakh rupees |
| Section 113 | Section 147, waging war | |
|---|---|---|
| What it targets | Terror, or a threat to unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security | War against the Government of India |
| Means | Explosives, weapons, hazardous substances, criminal force against a public functionary, hostage taking | Waging, attempting to wage or abetting war |
| Chapter | VI, offences affecting the human body | VII, offences against the State |
A worked example
A group plants an explosive device in a crowded market in a State capital. It kills four people and damages shops.
Is section 113 made out? The act was done by using an explosive substance, and it caused death and damage to property, so clause (a) is satisfied. Whether it was done with the intent to strike terror in a section of the people, or was likely to do so, is the question, and a bomb in a crowded market is likely to strike terror on the face of it. The offence has resulted in death, so section 113(2)(a) permits death or imprisonment for life and fine.
Who else is liable? A person who advised or incited the planting, or knowingly facilitated it, or did a preparatory act, is liable under section 113(3) to five years to imprisonment for life. A person who ran the camp where the group was trained is liable under section 113(4) on the same scale. A member of the organisation is liable under section 113(5) to up to imprisonment for life.
A cousin hides one of them for a week. Section 113(6) applies, three years to imprisonment for life, unless the person who hid him is his spouse, in which case the proviso exempts them.
The Terrorist Act in the Sanhita
Which statute will the case be registered under? By the concluding Explanation, an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police decides whether it goes under section 113 or under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. If it goes under the special Act, the accused faces that Act's bail provision and its extended investigation periods.
Change the facts. Suppose the same group instead circulates false information that causes a run on a co-operative bank, intending to destabilise the district's economy. Whether that is a terrorist act turns on whether the act falls within clause (a), (b) or (c), because the intent limb alone is not enough. Circulating information is not a use of the means listed in clause (a) unless "any other means of whatever nature" is read to cover it, and that is exactly where such a case would be argued.
What beginners get wrong
Thinking section 113 replaced the special Act. It did not. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 remains in force and the two operate side by side.
Thinking intent must always be proved. The words "or likely to" appear alongside both intents in the opening of sub-section (1).
Reading the offence as needing a death. It does not. Death raises the punishment to the capital band under sub-section (2)(a); without it the range is five years to imprisonment for life.
Overlooking that membership alone is punished. Section 113(5) punishes membership of an organisation involved in a terrorist act with up to imprisonment for life.
Limits and criticism
A police officer chooses the procedural regime. The concluding Explanation is the most criticised line in the section, because the consequences of the choice, above all for bail and for the length of investigation, are severe and the decision is taken before any court is involved.
"Economic security" is undefined. It is a new limb of a serious offence, and the section gives no content to it.
"Any other means of whatever nature" makes the means limb open-ended. A list of explosives, weapons, gases, chemicals and hazardous substances followed by that phrase invites the argument that any act at all with the required intent is within clause (a).
The overlap duplicates rather than resolves. Two statutes now define terrorism differently, with different procedures and different sentencing, over the same conduct.
Quick revision
Section 113(1). Intent, or likelihood, of threatening the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India, or of striking terror in the people or a section of them in India or a foreign country, by the means in clauses (a) to (c).
Clause (a). Explosives, inflammables, firearms, lethal weapons, poisonous or noxious gases, chemicals, biological, radioactive, nuclear or other hazardous substances, or any other means, causing or likely to cause death, injury, or loss of or damage to property, including defence property in India or abroad.
The Terrorist Act in the Sanhita
Clause (b). Overawing by criminal force or its show, or causing or attempting the death of a public functionary.
Clause (c). Detaining, kidnapping or abducting and threatening, to compel a Government, an international organisation or any other person to act or abstain.
Section 113(2). Death results: death or imprisonment for life and fine. Otherwise: five years to imprisonment for life and fine.
Sub-sections (3) to (7). Conspiracy and facilitation; training camps and recruitment; membership; harbouring, with a spouse proviso; possession of proceeds.
The concluding Explanation. An officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police decides whether to register under this section or under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Test yourself
1. What are the two intents in the opening of section 113(1)? The intent to threaten, or likelihood of threatening, the unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic security of India; and the intent to strike terror, or likelihood of striking terror, in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
2. Who decides whether a case is registered under section 113 or under the special Act, and why does it matter? An officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, by the concluding Explanation. It matters because the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act carries its own procedure, including a stricter bail provision and longer investigation periods, while a case under section 113 alone follows the ordinary procedure.
3. Is membership of a terrorist organisation an offence under section 113? Yes. Sub-section (5) punishes any person who is a member of an organisation involved in a terrorist act with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine.
4. Does section 113 require a death? No. A death raises the punishment under sub-section (2)(a) to death or imprisonment for life. Without one, the range under sub-section (2)(b) is not less than five years extending to imprisonment for life.
5. What is new about the interests protected by section 113 compared with earlier formulations? The inclusion of "economic security" alongside unity, integrity, sovereignty and security, which brings acts aimed at the economy within the definition of a terrorist act.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.