The Supreme Court has recently asserted that creating an atmosphere of fear to deter individuals from aiding law enforcement constitutes a terrorist act. This pronouncement came during a hearing regarding the remission plea of a convict who had served 27 years in jail for killing three civilians in Jammu and Kashmir, one of whom was an army informer.

The court, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S. V. N. Bhatti, contested the argument that the convict's actions could not be classified as terrorism since the conviction was not secured under an anti-terror law. The Justices emphasized that instilling fear to prevent people from siding with the law is indeed a terrorist act, regardless of whether anti-terror legislation is specifically invoked. They stated that they could not turn a blind eye to acts intended to create havoc and deter people from supporting the law.

Additional Solicitor General K. M. Natraj, representing the Jammu and Kashmir government, argued against granting remission, highlighting that the convict was serving a life sentence for a terror act and was therefore ineligible under state policy. He further pointed out that explosive devices and weapons, including grenade launchers, were recovered from the incident scene, indicating that it was not merely a case of simple murder.

The convict, Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, argued that his conviction was solely under the Indian Penal Code for murder and the Arms Act, not under the then-applicable anti-terror law, TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act). His counsel, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, asserted that the trial court and High Court had not found the act to be a terrorist act and that nothing presented in court warranted the application of TADA provisions.

This statement from the Supreme Court underscores a broad interpretation of what constitutes a terrorist act, focusing on the intent and impact of the action rather than solely on the specific laws under which an individual is charged. By emphasizing the creation of fear and the disruption of the legal process as key elements, the court's observation has broader implications for how acts of violence and intimidation are perceived and prosecuted, even when they don't fall neatly under the umbrella of existing anti-terror laws.

The Supreme Court's observation aligns with the principle that the courts must protect democracy and constitutional rights without fear or favor. The American Bar Association has also voiced similar sentiments, condemning efforts to undermine the courts and the legal profession, and emphasizing that lawyers must be free to represent clients and perform their ethical duties without fear of retribution. The judiciary's role is to uphold the rule of law, and any attempts to intimidate judges or manipulate the legal system should be vigorously opposed.