Counter-Terrorism and International Security – G20’s Objectives and India’s Legal Framework

Counter-Terrorism and International Security – G20 Objectives and India’s Legal Framework

Introduction

Terrorism remains one of the gravest threats to international peace and security in the contemporary world. The menace of terrorism transcends geographical boundaries and challenges the sovereignty of nations, making it imperative for countries to cooperate through multilateral platforms. The Group of Twenty (G20), initially conceived as an economic forum in 1999, has evolved to address pressing global security concerns, particularly counter-terrorism. India, holding the G20 presidency in 2023, demonstrated its commitment to combating terrorism through a robust legal framework and active participation in international cooperation. This article examines the G20’s counter-terrorism objectives and India’s domestic legal architecture designed to address terrorist threats while analyzing the regulatory mechanisms and judicial interpretations that shape this critical area of law.

G20’s Evolution and Counter-Terrorism Mandate

The G20’s engagement with counter-terrorism issues began following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, which fundamentally altered the global security landscape. At the 2001 meeting in Canada, G20 members collectively expressed their determination to stop the financing of terrorism in cooperation with international financial institutions and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) [1]. This marked the beginning of the forum’s expanded mandate beyond economic cooperation.

The Hamburg G20 Leaders’ Statement on Countering Terrorism in 2017 represented a significant milestone in codifying the group’s approach to combating terrorism. The statement emphasized three critical areas: implementing international commitments and enhancing cooperation, fighting terrorism finance and countering radicalization conducive to terrorism, and preventing the use of the internet for terrorist purposes [2]. The G20 leaders condemned all terrorist attacks worldwide and resolved to stand united in the fight against terrorism and its financing. They stressed that all counter-terrorism measures must be implemented in accordance with the United Nations Charter and obligations under international law, including respect for international human rights law.

During India’s G20 presidency in 2023, the New Delhi Declaration reinforced the commitment to counter-terrorism cooperation. The declaration condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, recognizing it as one of the most serious threats to international peace and security [3]. The leaders committed to supporting the increasing resource needs of FATF and FATF-style regional bodies, emphasizing the importance of implementing revised standards on transparency of beneficial ownership to prevent criminals from hiding and laundering illicit gains. The statement also highlighted the need to strengthen international cooperation to deny terrorist groups safe haven, freedom of operations, movement, recruitment, and financial or material support.

The G20’s focus on countering terrorism financing has become increasingly sophisticated, addressing emerging challenges such as the misuse of new technologies, cryptocurrencies, and digital payment systems. The forum has emphasized the implementation of FATF standards across all jurisdictions, particularly regarding the transparency and traceability of financial transactions that could be exploited for terrorist purposes. Member states have recognized that effective counter-terrorism requires a holistic approach that addresses the conditions conducive to terrorism, including countering violent extremism, combating radicalization and recruitment, and preventing terrorists from exploiting technology and communication resources.

India’s Legislative Framework for Counter-Terrorism

India’s counter-terrorism legal framework has evolved significantly over decades in response to persistent security challenges. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) serves as the cornerstone of India’s anti-terrorism legislation. Originally enacted to address activities threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, the Act underwent substantial amendments in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 to strengthen its provisions and align with international counter-terrorism standards [4].

The UAPA defines “terrorist act” under Section 15 as any act committed with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India, or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of people in India or in any foreign country. The Act empowers the Central Government to declare an organization as unlawful if it indulges in activities supporting the cession or secession of any part of India or questioning the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Section 10 of the Act criminalizes membership of unlawful associations, making it an offense punishable with imprisonment extending up to two years.

The 2019 amendments to UAPA introduced several significant changes that expanded the scope of India’s counter-terrorism capabilities. Perhaps the most notable amendment was the provision allowing the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists, not merely organizations [5]. This change reflected the evolving nature of terrorism where individuals operating independently or in loose networks pose significant threats. The amendment also empowered the Director-General of the National Investigation Agency to grant approval for seizure or attachment of property when the investigation requires such action, streamlining the process of disrupting financial networks supporting terrorism.

The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 established the NIA as India’s premier counter-terrorism law enforcement organization, operating as a central agency with jurisdiction across the country. The Act empowers NIA officers of the rank of Inspector and above to investigate cases, expanding the investigative capacity beyond the original provision that limited such powers to Deputy Superintendents or Assistant Commissioners. The 2019 amendments to the NIA Act significantly expanded the agency’s jurisdiction to investigate offenses committed outside India targeting Indians or Indian interests [6]. The Act now covers a broader range of scheduled offenses including human trafficking, counterfeit currency, manufacture or sale of prohibited arms, and cyber-terrorism, reflecting the diverse and evolving nature of security threats.

Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Validity

The constitutional validity and interpretation of India’s counter-terrorism laws have been subject to extensive judicial scrutiny, resulting in landmark judgments that have shaped the application of these statutes. The Supreme Court of India in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) addressed the constitutionality of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), a predecessor to UAPA [7]. In this watershed judgment, a five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of TADA, recognizing terrorism as a threat to the very existence and sovereignty of the country that transcends the confines of ordinary public order concerns.

The Court held that Parliament possessed legislative competence to enact anti-terrorism legislation under Entry 1 of List I (Defence of India) and the residuary power under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I. The majority opinion emphasized that while the provisions of TADA were stringent, they were necessary given the extraordinary circumstances presented by terrorist activities. The Court stressed that terrorism directly endangers the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation, justifying special legislative measures. However, the Court also cautioned that such extraordinary powers must be exercised in good faith and for the benefit of the public, acknowledging concerns about potential misuse.

The interpretation of membership provisions under anti-terrorism laws has undergone significant evolution through judicial pronouncements. In Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had initially held that mere membership of a banned organization would not incriminate a person unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder [8]. The Court read down Section 10 of UAPA, drawing upon American jurisprudence that distinguished between advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action.

However, this interpretation was subsequently reconsidered in the 2023 review of Arup Bhuyan by a three-judge bench, which overruled the earlier decisions in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das v. State of Assam, and State of Kerala v. Raneef [9]. The larger bench held that once an organization is declared unlawful after following due procedure, a person who continues to be a member of such unlawful association is liable to be punished under Section 10 of UAPA. The Court emphasized that the reading down of a provision is not permissible when the language of the section is plain and clear, and that reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights are permissible to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. This judgment reflected the judiciary’s recognition of the grave threat posed by terrorist organizations and the need for effective legal mechanisms to counter such threats.

Regulatory Mechanisms and International Cooperation

India’s counter-terrorism regulatory framework operates through multiple layers of governance involving central and state agencies. The Ministry of Home Affairs serves as the lead federal ministry with a dedicated Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Radicalization Division overseeing national policy implementation. The National Security Guard functions as the federal counterterrorism security force, while several states maintain specialized counter-terrorism units within their police forces. This federal-state coordination ensures that counter-terrorism efforts are implemented effectively across the country’s diverse geographical and administrative landscape.

India actively participates in international counter-terrorism cooperation through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms. During its 2023 G20 presidency, India hosted hundreds of meetings culminating in the New Delhi Summit, demonstrating its capability to manage large-scale international events without security incidents. India’s cooperation on terrorism-related issues extends to numerous countries including Bangladesh, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates, among others [3]. The country’s defense relationships with Australia, France, Israel, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom extend to counter-terrorism matters, facilitating intelligence sharing, joint training exercises, and operational coordination.

India’s membership in FATF and its participation in regional bodies such as the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering demonstrate its commitment to international standards for combating terrorism financing. The country’s Financial Intelligence Unit, a member of the Egmont Group, plays a crucial role in analyzing financial intelligence and coordinating with international counterparts. In 2023, the NIA seized real estate and bank accounts worth approximately 7.2 million dollars in cases related to terrorism, demonstrating the practical implementation of counter-terrorism financing measures [3].

The regulatory framework also addresses emerging challenges such as online radicalization and the use of technology for terrorist purposes. Federal and state police monitor online platforms for violent extremist content and messaging, responding to concerns about terrorist recruitment through digital means. However, this monitoring must balance security imperatives with constitutional protections for freedom of speech and expression, requiring careful application of legal standards and judicial oversight.

Challenges and the Path Forward

Despite the robust legal framework and international cooperation, India’s counter-terrorism efforts face several challenges. The low conviction rate under UAPA has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation. According to official data, only 2.2 percent of cases registered under UAPA between 2016 and 2019 resulted in convictions, indicating either ineffective prosecution or potential overuse of the statute [4]. This low conviction rate suggests that while the law provides extensive powers to investigative agencies, successful prosecution requires strong evidence and proper legal procedures.

Human rights organizations have raised concerns about the potential misuse of counter-terrorism laws to target dissent and curtail civil liberties. The broad definitions of terrorist acts and unlawful activities, combined with provisions allowing prolonged detention without trial, create possibilities for abuse. The amendment allowing designation of individuals as terrorists without requiring proof of specific acts has been particularly controversial, with critics arguing that it could be used arbitrarily against political opponents or critics of the government. Balancing national security imperatives with the protection of fundamental rights remains an ongoing challenge requiring constant vigilance from the judiciary, civil society, and democratic institutions.

The federal structure of India presents coordination challenges, as counter-terrorism requires seamless cooperation between central and state agencies. While the NIA has been empowered to investigate cases across states without prior permission from state governments, this centralization of power has raised concerns about federal autonomy and the traditional division of law enforcement responsibilities. Effective counter-terrorism requires building trust and cooperation mechanisms that respect federal principles while ensuring swift and coordinated responses to threats.

Conclusion

Counter-terrorism in the contemporary world requires both robust national legal frameworks and effective international cooperation. The G20’s evolution from an economic forum to a platform addressing global security challenges reflects the recognition that terrorism poses threats to both security and economic prosperity. India’s counter-terrorism legal framework, centered on the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the National Investigation Agency Act, provides extensive powers to combat terrorist threats while being subject to judicial review and constitutional constraints.

The challenge lies in ensuring that counter-terrorism measures remain effective while respecting human rights and democratic values. The judicial interpretation of anti-terrorism laws, as seen in cases from Kartar Singh to the recent reconsideration of Arup Bhuyan, demonstrates the ongoing effort to strike this balance. As terrorism continues to evolve with new technologies and methodologies, India’s legal framework must remain adaptive while maintaining constitutional safeguards. International cooperation through platforms like the G20, combined with strong domestic institutions and an independent judiciary, provides the best path forward in combating terrorism while preserving the values that democratic societies seek to protect.

References

[1] Indian Council of World Affairs. (2017). G20 SUMMIT & COUNTER-TERRORISM: Expanding its Remit or Temporary Inflection? Available at: https://icwa.in/show_content.php?lang=1&level=3&lid=1757&ls_id=2335 

[2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2017). The Hamburg G20 Leaders’ Statement on Countering Terrorism. Available at: https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000271330.pdf 

[3] U.S. Department of State. (2024). Country Reports on Terrorism 2023: India. Available at: https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2023/india 

[4] Drishti IAS. (2024). Assessing the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/assessing-the-unlawful-activities-prevention-act 

[5] Vajira & Ravi. (2025). Unlawful Activities Prevention Act: History, UAPA Provisions. Available at: https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/unlawful-activities-prevention-act/ 

[6] Centre For Land Warfare Studies. (n.d.). Evolution of India’s Anti-Terrorism Law. Available at: https://www.claws.in/evolution-of-indias-anti-terrorism-law/ 

[7] Indian Kanoon. (1994). Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1813801/ 

[8] Indian Kanoon. (2011). Arup Bhuyan vs State Of Assam on 3 February, 2011. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/792920/ 

[9] LiveLaw. (2023). Mere Membership Of Unlawful Organization Is UAPA Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Its 2011 Precedents. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-passive-membership-banned-organisations-uapatada-arup-bhuyan-raneef-224628 

Authorized and Published by Prapti Bhatt