Madras High Court· 24 August 2026

Do Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA require the actual commission of a terrorist act under Section 15?

Aziz Ahamed @ Aziz Ahmed @ Jaleel Aziz Ahamed @ Ab v. Union of India rep by its

CRL A.576/2026 · 2026:MHC:3445 · CRL A NO. 576 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice Sunder Mohan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.227 Criminal Procedure Code, 1…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Sections 17 and 18 are stand alone in nature and do not require the actual commission of a terrorist act as contemplated under Section 15. It would suffice that the allegations, and evidence on record, relate to the raising of funds for use in a terrorist act, or to conspiracy, abetment, advice or incitement in connection with or preparatory to the commission of the terrorist act.

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.13, 15, 17, 18, 43-D(5) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — s.227 — Discharge — Terrorist act — Raising of funds — Conspiracy — Prima facie case — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.17 & 18 — Terrorist act — Stand alone offences, no actual commission — Held: Sections 17 and 18 are stand alone in nature and do not require the actual commission of a terrorist act as contemplated under Section 15. It suffices that the allegations relate to raising of funds, conspiracy, or an act preparatory to a terrorist act. (¶30) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — s.227 — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43-D(5) — Discharge and bail — Different spheres, different burdens — Held further: Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 43-D(5) operate in different spheres and for different purposes. The burden on the Prosecution is less under Section 227, where a grave suspicion made out by the Prosecution suffices. (¶39, 41) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.13 — Terrorist organisation — Association before ban not innocuous — Held further: It is the manner of association with the organization that is relevant, and a ban taking effect later does not make association for the prior periods innocuous. Discharge declined; appeal dismissed. (¶32, 46)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 30The charges laid as against the appellant relate to Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the UAPA. In our view, Sections 17 and 18 are stand alone in nature, and do not require the actual commission of a terrorist act, as contemplated under section 15. It would suffice that the allegations, and evidence on record relate to those acts adumbrated in Sections 17 and 18, being the raising of funds for use in a terrorist act or conspiracy, or attempts to commit or advocate, abet, advice CRL A NO. 576 OF 2026 and or incite the commission of a terrorist act, or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act.

Paragraph 35Thus, in our view, the activities of the appellant prima facie, fall within the cover of Sections 17 and 18 dealing with the raising of funds and conspiracy/abetment/advise/incitement in connection with or preparatory to the commission of the terrorist act, if not the actual commission of the act itself. CRL A NO. 576 OF 2026 and

Acts & Sections

s.227 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973s.17 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.18 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.13 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.15 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.43-D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.2(o) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.120A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.120B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.153A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.153B Indian Penal Code, 1860National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Aziz Ahamed @ Aziz Ahmed @ Jaleel Aziz Ahamed @ Ab v. Union of India rep by its — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is the burden on the Prosecution under Section 227 CrPC lower than under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections