Understanding Terrorism with legal and social perspective

                                 
Author: Kasak Dubey, Swami Vivekanand University, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh

To the point

Terrorism refers to the unlawful activity by use of violence and intimidation especially held against civilians, to achieve political, ideological and religious goals.It disrupts peace , threatens human lives and challenges the foundation of legal systems. Despite technological advancements and increased global cooperation, terrorism continue to evolve, exploiting modern tools such as social media encrypted communications and cyber warfare. The impact of terrorism on international convention has been significant, both in terms of shaping global legal framework and influencing diplomatic relations. This article aims to illuminate a legal and social perspective of terrorism with the help of case laws .

Abstract

Terrorism is a global phenomenon that transcends borders, affecting societies through violence, fear, and political disruption. This article examines terrorism from a legal and social perspective, highlighting its definitions, types, causes, and consequences. It explores the impact of terrorism on international conventions, the development of national and global counter-terrorism laws, and the balance between security and civil liberties. Emphasis is placed on the role of legal frameworks, public awareness, and international cooperation in combating terrorism. By analyzing both the challenges and responses, the article aims to inform the general public and encourage critical engagement with how terrorism shapes modern law, governance, and society.

Use of legal jagron

Terrorism laws often operate at the intersection of national security and individual liberties, invoking a range of constitutional and statutory provisions. In India, for instance, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is the primary statute addressing terrorism, empowering the state to designate individuals or organizations as terrorists, freeze assets, intercept communications, and detain suspects without formal charges for extended periods. These powers often come into tension with fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 19 (freedom of speech & expression), and Article 21 (protection of life & personal liberty). The courts have developed various constitutional doctrines to mediate this conflict. The Doctrine of Proportionality, for example, insists that any restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonable and not excessive relative to the threat posed. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the Supreme Court upheld TADA’s constitutionality but emphasized judicial oversight and safeguards against misuse, highlighting the need for procedural fairness even in extraordinary situations. Similarly, the Doctrine of Due Process, though not explicitly written into the Indian Constitution, has been read into Article 21 following Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), ensuring that any deprivation of liberty must follow a fair and reasonable procedure. Internationally, laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the UK Terrorism Act 2000 have also been scrutinized for overbroad powers that may infringe upon civil liberties.

The proof

Despite global efforts, several key challenges make it difficult to completely eradicate terrorism. One major obstacle is the persistence of deep-rooted extremist ideologies, often linked to religion, politics, or identity, which can continue to spread through generations and across digital platforms. Ongoing conflicts and political instability in certain regions also provide fertile ground for terrorist groups to operate and recruit. In addition, the rise of “lone-wolf” attackers—individuals radicalized online who act without direct links to larger organizations—makes detection and prevention extremely difficult. The internet further complicates counterterrorism by enabling terrorists to communicate, recruit, and spread propaganda globally with speed and anonymity. Socioeconomic issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of education continue to push vulnerable individuals toward extremist ideologies, and these problems take time to resolve. Lastly, terrorist groups are highly adaptive, constantly changing tactics and locations to evade authorities. These persistent challenges mean that while terrorism can be reduced and controlled, its complete eradication remains extremely difficult.

Case laws

1. Yakub Abdul Razak Menon vs State of Maharashtra (2013)
The Supreme Court identified Yakub Memon as a principal conspirator in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts, which resulted in 257 fatalities and over 700injuries .
>His role was not peripheral but central to the execution of the plan. the court emphasised his major  role in orchestrating the conspiracy.
> “The evidence establishes that he managed finances, facilitated training in Pakistan, and coordinated the logistics essential for the attacks.”
The Supreme Court concluded that Yakub Memon’s actions warranted the highest degree of punishment under the law, affirming the death sentence awarded by the TADA court.

Conclusion

Terrorism, in its many forms, continues to be a global challenge that defies simple solutions. In today’s world, terrorist activities have diversified beyond traditional battlefields, taking new forms such as cyberterrorism, lone-wolf attacks, and ideologically motivated violence spread through online platforms.From a legal perspective, countries have strengthened their laws and surveillance systems to detect, prevent, and punish terrorism. International cooperation has expanded, with bodies like the United Nations pushing for coordinated action through resolutions and treaties. Socially, terrorism is both a cause and consequence of deeper societal fractures. Marginalization, perceived injustice, identity crises, and ideological indoctrination often fuel radicalization. Thus, a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy must go beyond military and police responses—it must include community engagement, education, deradicalization programs, and efforts to build inclusive, just, and resilient societies.
In conclusion, defeating terrorism is not just about eliminating threats, but about addressing the conditions that allow them to thrive. A comprehensive approach—legally sound, socially inclusive, and globally coordinated—is essential to ensure that security does not come at the cost of freedom, and that peace is both just and lasting.

FAQS

1. What is terrorism?

Terrorism refers to the use or threat of violence—often against civilians—for political, religious, or ideological purposes. The goal is to create fear and achieve certain objectives, such as forcing governments to act or drawing attention to a cause.

2.Is terrorism the same as insurgency or guerrilla warfare?

No, but they can overlap. Insurgency and guerrilla warfare usually involve combatants fighting a government or occupying force, often targeting military or infrastructure. Terrorism tends to focus on civilians and psychological impact.

3.Can terrorism ever be justified?

While some argue that one person’s terrorist is another’s “freedom fighter,” most legal systems and international norms condemn terrorism because it intentionally harms innocent people and undermines rule of law.

4.What is the difference between terrorism and war?

War is usually declared between states or organized military groups and follows international laws (e.g., Geneva Conventions). Terrorism, on the other hand, involves unlawful violence against civilians, often by non-state actors.

5.Can terrorism ever be completely eliminated?

Probably not entirely, but it can be greatly reduced. Addressing root causes—like inequality, injustice, and radicalization—along with security and community-based approaches, helps minimize the threat.

6.What is state-sponsored terrorism? Is it legal?

State-sponsored terrorism occurs when a government supports terrorist groups (financially, logistically, or ideologically). This is illegal under international law and can lead to sanctions or global condemnation.