Mob violence can have serious criminal consequences. A large group attacking people, damaging property, using weapons or creating fear may lead to charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
But an important legal question arises when violence is alleged to have been intended to create widespread terror or threaten the security or integrity of India:
When does mob violence become a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
The answer is not simply based on the number of people involved or the level of violence.
A violent incident does not automatically become terrorism merely because it is serious, shocking or widely reported. The statutory requirements of a terrorist act must be examined carefully.
Let’s understand the difference.
1. Mob violence and terrorism are not the same
Mob violence can involve offences such as unlawful assembly, rioting, assault, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, destruction of property or other offences under the BNS.
Under Section 189 of the BNS, an assembly of five or more persons can become an unlawful assembly when its common object falls within specified unlawful purposes, including using criminal force, resisting the execution of law, committing an offence or using criminal force to compel a person to do something they are not legally bound to do.
If force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, Section 191 of the BNS deals with rioting. Ordinary rioting can attract imprisonment of up to two years, rioting while armed with a deadly weapon can attract imprisonment of up to five years.
Therefore, serious violence can already result in significant criminal liability without the UAPA being involved.
2. What makes a terrorist act different?
Section 15 of the UAPA defines a terrorist act.
The provision focuses on the intention and nature of the act. Among other requirements, the act must be intended to threaten, or be likely to threaten, the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India, or be intended to strike terror or likely to strike terror in people or a section of people in India or abroad.
It also covers certain conduct involving criminal force against public functionaries and certain acts involving detention, kidnapping or abduction intended to compel a government or other person to act or refrain from acting.
This is why the seriousness of the violence alone is not the entire test. The prosecution must establish the ingredients required by Section 15.
3. The intention behind the act can be crucial
Consider two hypothetical situations.
Situation A: Ordinary mob violence
A group of people gets involved in a local dispute. The group attacks another group, damages vehicles and shops, and several people are injured.
This could potentially involve offences such as unlawful assembly, rioting, causing hurt, assault, mischief and other applicable offences.
Situation B: Conduct intended to strike terror
A group deliberately carries out a violent attack using lethal means with the intention of striking terror in a section of the population or threatening India’s security or integrity.
Depending on the facts and evidence, the ingredients of a terrorist act under Section 15 may become relevant.
The distinction therefore involves much more than asking:
“How violent was the incident?”
The investigation may also have to examine:
“What was the objective of the act?”
“What was the accused’s intention?”
“Was the conduct intended or likely to strike terror?”
“Did the conduct fall within the acts covered by Section 15?”
4. A large crowd does not automatically mean terrorism
The word “mob” can create the impression that a large gathering itself is inherently dangerous.
Legally, however, the number of people involved does not by itself convert an offence into terrorism.
The BNS specifically recognises unlawful assemblies and rioting. An assembly of five or more persons can qualify as unlawful when the statutory conditions are met, and an assembly can even become unlawful after it has initially gathered lawfully.
5. What about rioting under the BNS?
Section 191 of the BNS provides that when force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by a member of it in prosecution of the assembly’s common object, every member of that assembly is guilty of rioting.
The punishment can extend to two years’ imprisonment, fine, or both.
Where the person is armed with a deadly weapon or something which, when used as a weapon, is likely to cause death, imprisonment can extend to five years, along with possible fine.
This demonstrates that the ordinary criminal law already provides mechanisms to deal with violent mobs.
The UAPA comes into consideration only when the facts satisfy its separate statutory requirements.
6. Can members of a mob be held responsible for another person’s actions?
Section 190 of the BNS provides that where an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object, or where members knew that the offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who was a member of the assembly at the relevant time can be guilty of that offence.
This is sometimes referred to as liability based on the common object of an unlawful assembly.
However, this does not mean that every person who happens to be physically present at a gathering is automatically guilty of every act committed there.
The circumstances, common object, knowledge and conduct of the accused remain important.
7. UAPA is a separate and more serious legal framework
The UAPA is a special legislation dealing with unlawful activities and terrorist activities.
Section 15 defines the terrorist act, while other provisions of the Act deal with offences such as conspiracy, attempting to commit, advocating, abetting, advising or inciting terrorist acts, and membership or support-related conduct in circumstances specified by the Act.
Consequently, when UAPA provisions are invoked, the case can have consequences beyond those ordinarily associated with offences such as rioting or assault.
This is why the distinction between an ordinary violent offence and a terrorist act is legally significant.
8. Violence against public officials does not automatically become terrorism
Attacking police officers or other public officials during a violent incident can result in serious criminal charges.
The BNS contains specific provisions dealing with assaulting or obstructing public servants while they are suppressing a riot or unlawful assembly.
But even serious violence against public officials does not automatically satisfy Section 15 of the UAPA.
The relevant question remains whether the conduct meets the statutory requirements of a terrorist act, including the required connection to threats to India’s unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty, or the intention or likelihood of striking terror, together with the specified forms of conduct.
9. Evidence and individual conduct matter
When serious charges are brought against people following mob violence, the role of each accused can become extremely important.
Investigators may examine matters such as:
- CCTV footage and photographs
- Mobile phone and digital evidence
- Witness statements
- Weapons or other material allegedly recovered
- Communications between accused persons
- The location and conduct of each accused
- Evidence regarding the alleged common object
- Evidence regarding intention and knowledge
- The circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.
Simply being present at the location does not answer every question about criminal liability.
At the same time, a person cannot assume that they are immune from liability merely because they did not personally cause the final injury or damage. The law concerning unlawful assemblies and common objects can be relevant depending on the facts.
10. The difference in simple terms
A useful way to understand the distinction is:
Ordinary mob violence:
A group engages in unlawful assembly, violence, assault, destruction of property or other criminal conduct.
Terrorist act:
The conduct must satisfy the specific requirements of Section 15 of the UAPA, including the relevant intention or likelihood concerning India’s security, sovereignty, unity or integrity, or the intention or likelihood of striking terror, along with conduct covered by the provision.
The same incident may involve multiple offences, but the prosecution still has to establish the ingredients of each offence charged.
Before assuming that an incident is “terrorism”
Whether an incident amounts to terrorism is a serious legal question.
Consider:
- Was the assembly unlawful?
- Was force or violence used?
- What was the common object of the group?
- What did the individual accused actually do?
- What evidence establishes the accused’s intention or knowledge?
- Does the alleged conduct satisfy the requirements of Section 15 UAPA?
- Could the conduct instead constitute offences under the BNS or other applicable laws?
The label attached to an incident should not replace the legal analysis.
The difference between mob violence and terrorism is not merely a difference in terminology. It can involve fundamentally different legal provisions, allegations, procedures and consequences.
A violent incident may constitute serious criminal conduct without necessarily satisfying the statutory definition of a terrorist act.
At the same time, where the evidence establishes conduct falling within Section 15 of the UAPA, the consequences can be significantly more serious.
“In criminal law, the label matters—but the ingredients of the offence and the evidence matter even more”
