Supreme Court to examine whether gold smuggling can fall within the scope of ‘terrorist activity’ under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

The Supreme Court will examine whether gold smuggling will fall within the ambit of ‘terrorist activity’ under Section 15(1)(iiia) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA)..A Division Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and BR Gavai issued notice in a plea filed by one Mohammad Aslam challenging an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his plea to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for offences under the UAPA after he was caught smuggling gold..As per Section 15(1)(iiia), a ‘terrorist act’ includes any act done with intent to threaten the security or integrity of India by any means which causes or is likely to cause “any damage to, the monetary stability of India by way of production or smuggling or circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of any other material”..Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the 160th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on the Unlawful Activities Prevention Bill, 2011 ,wherein ‘high quality counterfeit Indian currency’, the term ‘paper’ ‘coin’ or ‘any other materials’ under Section 15(1)(iiia) were put in same bracket. It was argued that the legislature never intended to lay down ‘or of any other materials’ as a separate entity..The petitioner’s case was that he had lost his job in Saudi Arabia due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was struggling financially when he met one Lal Mohammad, who influenced the petitioner to deliver some gold to an unknown person in Jaipur..Lal Mohammad promised to book petitioner an air ticket to India and also give Rs. 10,000.“Since the petitioner was unemployed and desperate for money, he agreed to LAld Mohammad’s offer,” the plea states..However, in July 2020, Aslam and ten others were arrested at Jaipur International Airport while attempting to smuggle gold.An FIR was registered against him under Section 16 of UAPA on the allegation that he had smuggled gold with the intent to threaten the economic security and damaging the monetary stability of India..The petitioner contended that no prima facie case was made out against him and that he was in no way connected to any terrorist or extremist group.The petitioner’s counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of the Kerala High Court dated February 18, 2021, in which it was held that smuggling covered by provisions of the Customs Act will not fall within the definition of 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of UAPA, unless evidence is brought out to show that the act was done with the intention to threaten the economic security of India..“The petitioner was a labourer and he smuggled gold in greed of air ticket and money due to situation in lockdown,” the petition states.Advocates Aditya jain, Neha Gyamlani, Bhavya Golecha and Farooq Ahmed represented the petitioner..[Read Order]