New Delhi, April 6
The Supreme Court has held that acts of terrorism are peacetime equivalents to war crimes and has upheld life sentence to 18 extremists under TADA for killing a police official, injuring several others and looting arms from a police station in Jahanabad district of Bihar 16 years ago.

Rejecting the appeal of the 18 extremists against their conviction under TADA, the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act by a special court at Jahanabad, the apex court said “terrorism is one of the menifestations of increased lawlessness and cult of violence, which constitute a threat to an established order and a revolt against civilised and orderly society.”

“If the core of war crimes — deliberate attacks on civilians, taking people hostage and killing of prisoners — is extended to peacetime, we can simply define acts of terrorism veritably as peacetime equivalents of war crimes,” a Bench comprising Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat ruled.

Expressing concern over the growing tendency among hardened criminals to take advantage of the situation in militancy infested parts of the country and “wearing the cloak of terrorism”, the court said any such attempt by anti-social elements had to be dealt with sternly.

According to the prosecution, the extremists, who had earlier looted the Arwal police station in Jahanabad in November 1988, were challenged by a raiding police party when they were hiding in a house at Bhadasi village.

In the ensuing encounter, two extremists and Inspector Rashid Imam, who led the operation, were killed and some other police personnel injured.

The police party had arrested 12 of the 20 extremists, of whom two were minors, who were tried under juvenile laws. Two had died during trial proceedings.

They had challenged the special TADA court’s order on the ground that they were not terrorists and could not be convicted under the anti-terrorist law. It was in this context, that the apex court had laid down the definition of terrorism, which it said was not clearly provided in the TADA, which has now been replaced by POTA.

The court said since UN member states had failed to evolve a consensus on the definition of terrorism, as it was seen in some part as a fight for freedom, the court said lack of clear definition was the major obstacle in taking counter measures against the menace.

If the definition of terrorism was restricted to attacks on civilians or non-military installations, any attack on soldiers and their houses could not be included within its meaning, the court said.