BACK TO SECTIONS(2019) 5 SCC 1(2011) 3 SCC 380
Non-BailableCognizable: CognizableSpecial Court / Court of Session
Reform Highlights
1
NEW to BNS — terrorism provision in the general penal code for the first time.
2
Operates alongside UAPA — both can apply simultaneously.
3
Economic terrorism and critical infrastructure attacks explicitly covered.
4
Death penalty available where terrorist act results in death.
THE STATUTE
The Clause
Whoever commits a terrorist act shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine, if such act has resulted in the death of any person; and in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Legal Commentary
Section 113 introduces a terrorism provision into India's general penal code for the first time — the IPC had no terrorism provision, with terrorism prosecuted entirely under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 and its amendments. A 'terrorist act' under BNS 113 is defined as one that: (1) uses bombs, explosives, inflammable substances, firearms, other lethal weapons, or hazardous substances; or (2) causes or threatens to cause damage to critical infrastructure, monetary system, or economic security of India; or (3) creates terror in any section of society through any means. The definition is deliberately wide — it covers not just physical bombings but economic terrorism (attacking the financial system), digital terrorism (cyberattacks on critical infrastructure), and acts causing widespread terror through any means. This breadth has attracted criticism from civil liberties groups concerned about overreach, echoing similar debates about the UAPA. The punishment framework mirrors the death/life sentencing for cases involving death, and a minimum five years for other terrorist acts. Crucially, the BNS terrorism provision operates alongside the UAPA — both can apply to the same act. The UAPA retains its own broader framework including designated terrorist organisations, travel bans, financial restrictions, and extended detention periods. BNS 113 gives ordinary courts additional jurisdiction to try terrorism-adjacent conduct that might not meet the UAPA's higher threshold, and allows prosecution under a code that does not require the same special procedural machinery as the UAPA.
Landmark Precedents
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court on UAPA terrorism provisions — bail standards in terrorism cases are extraordinarily high; the court must be prima facie satisfied that the accusation is false before granting bail. BNS 113 will likely attract the same approach.
Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011)
RELEVANCE
Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned organisation (without active violent activity) is not sufficient for terrorism conviction — the accused must have committed a specific act of violence or terror.
Case Simulations
"A bomb placed in a crowded train killing passengers — terrorist act under BNS 113, death penalty."
"A cyberattack on the NPCI (National Payments Corporation of India) infrastructure disrupting financial transactions nationwide — terrorist attack on monetary system under BNS 113."
"A sleeper cell that stockpiles explosives and plans attacks — conspiracy to commit terrorist act under BNS 113 read with Section 57."
"Armed militants who attack an army camp — terrorist act under BNS 113 and UAPA."
Expert Insights
BNS 113 is the terrorism provision in the general penal code, applicable in all courts. The UAPA is the dedicated anti-terrorism statute with additional powers: designation of terrorist organisations, preventive detention for up to 180 days without chargesheet, special courts, and financial sanctions. Both can apply to the same act — prosecutors typically use both.
The definition requires that the act must threaten critical infrastructure, the monetary system, economic security, or create terror in a section of society through violence or similar extreme means. Peaceful protests, even disruptive ones, do not meet this threshold. However, the breadth of the definition has attracted civil liberties concern about potential misuse against activists.