Introduction
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have emerged as one of the gravest threats to India’s internal security. Their low cost, ease of concealment, psychological impact, and lethality make them the weapon of choice for terrorist groups, insurgents, and left-wing extremist organizations. From urban terror strikes to ambushes in Left Wing Extremism (LWE)–affected regions, IEDs have been responsible for mass casualties, destruction of public property, and erosion of public confidence in the State’s ability to maintain law and order.
Combating IED attacks requires more than tactical or military responses. A robust legal framework is indispensable for prevention, investigation, prosecution, punishment, and deterrence. India has developed a multi-layered legal architecture combining criminal law, special anti-terror legislation, preventive detention laws, financial surveillance mechanisms, procedural innovations, and international cooperation frameworks.
Understanding IED Attacks as a Legal Problem
IED attacks are not merely episodic acts of violence; they represent grave criminal and terrorist offences engaging multiple layers of domestic and international law. Their legal significance extends far beyond the immediate physical harm caused.
At the constitutional level, IED attacks constitute a direct violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, imposing a positive obligation on the State to prevent, investigate, and punish such acts. They simultaneously pose serious threats to sovereignty, internal security, and public order, thereby triggering the application of special security and counter-terrorism statutes.
From a criminal law perspective, IED attacks involve the use of prohibited explosives, arms, and hazardous substances, coupled with organized criminal conspiracy encompassing financing, recruitment, training, transportation, and logistical support. These offences are rarely isolated; rather, they are embedded in structured networks that demand a holistic legal response.
Accordingly, an effective legal strategy against IED attacks must operate across three interrelated levels:
- Substantive criminal law, defining offences, penalties, and liability for perpetrators, abettors, and conspirators;
- Procedural and investigative law, governing arrest, search, seizure, evidence collection, forensic analysis, and fair trial standards; and
- Preventive, regulatory, and international legal mechanisms, including surveillance, proscription of organizations, control of explosives, financial tracking, extradition, and cross-border cooperation.
Viewing IED attacks through this multi-layered legal lens is essential to ensure accountability, deterrence, and the protection of constitutional values while effectively countering evolving security threats.
Constitutional Framework and State Responsibility
The Constitution of India provides the foundational basis for combating IED attacks.
Article 21 – Right to Life
IED attacks directly violate the fundamental right to life. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the State has a positive obligation to protect citizens from terrorist violence.
Article 19(2) – (6) – Reasonable Restrictions
Counter-terror laws restricting movement, association, and expression are constitutionally valid if they meet the test of reasonableness.
Seventh Schedule – Police and Public Order
Although “police” (Entry 2) and “public order” (Entry 1) fall under the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, making them primarily State subjects, terrorism and IED-related offences often transcend mere local law-and-order issues when they threaten national security, sovereignty, or integrity.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld Parliament’s legislative competence to enact anti-terror laws—such as TADA (in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994) and POTA (in PUCL v. Union of India, 2003)—by holding that such grave threats fall within Entry 1 of the Union List (“Defence of India”), which covers matters endangering the nation’s defence and security beyond State boundaries.
In any event, even if not squarely under Entry 1, Parliament can legislate under Entry 97 (residuary powers) read with Article 248, as terrorism is not explicitly enumerated in the State or Concurrent Lists and qualifies as a matter of national rather than purely State-level concern.
This framework enables central laws like the UAPA, NIA interventions, and deployment of Union forces, while preserving States’ routine policing powers, reflecting India’s quasi-federal balance in addressing national security threats.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Core Criminal Liability
The BNS continues to be a foundational tool for prosecuting IED-related crimes.
Key Provisions
- Section 103 – Murder
- Section 109 – Attempt to murder
- Section 61 – Criminal conspiracy
- Section 147 & 148 – Waging war against the State
- Section 326(g) – Mischief by fire or explosive substance
These provisions ensure that even if special laws fail on technical grounds, general criminal liability remains enforceable.
Explosives and Arms Control Legislation
Explosives Act, 1884
The Explosives Act, 1884 regulates the manufacture, possession, sale, transport, import, export, and use of explosives through licensing and safety rules under Section 5. Penal provisions are mainly contained in Section 9-B, which punishes unlawful manufacture, import, or export (up to 3 years’ imprisonment and/or fine), unlawful possession, use, sale, or transport (up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or fine), and other contraventions (fine). Section 9 provides penalties, including forfeiture, for negligent handling endangering life or property, while Section 10 punishes abetment. More serious offences involving intentional explosions are dealt with under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, particularly Sections 3–5, prescribing severe punishment including life imprisonment, and are often invoked alongside the 1884 Act in IED terrorism cases.
Arms Act, 1959
The Arms Act, 1959 is frequently invoked alongside explosives laws to prosecute illegal possession and use of weapons linked to IEDs. Sections 3 and 25 criminalise unauthorised acquisition or possession of arms, ammunition, detonators, and firing mechanisms, prescribing stringent imprisonment and fines for offences endangering public security.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is the cornerstone of India’s counter-terrorism framework and is central to prosecuting IED-related offences. IED attacks fall within “terrorist acts” (Section 15), terrorist conspiracy (Section 18), and membership or support of terrorist organisations (Sections 20 and 38–39). The Act provides extended custody (Section 43D), stringent bail conditions, admissibility of intercepted communications, and criminalises terrorist financing and logistical support (Section 17). Crucially, UAPA permits pre-emptive prosecution, enabling legal action even before an attack is executed.
National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 establishes the NIA (Section 3) for investigating and prosecuting Scheduled Offence (listed in the Schedule, including Explosive Substances Act, 1908, UAPA, 1967, and related terrorism/explosives laws). IED attacks with interstate, international, cross-border, or national security ramifications fall under these, enabling NIA’s centralized probe (Section 6 — Central Government directs investigation after state FIR referral). Advantages include concurrent jurisdiction overriding state limitations, specialized expertise in explosives/terror networks, and tracing funding/cross-border links (Section 8 for connected offences). The Act strengthens institutional enforcement of anti-IED laws.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Procedural Tools
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), procedural tools for arrest and detention in terror-related cases (often linked to UAPA or grave offences like terrorist acts under BNS Section 113) include: preventive arrests without warrant under Section 35 (police may arrest on reasonable suspicion of cognizable offences, with safeguards like notice for offences up to 7 years imprisonment, and handcuffs permitted for terrorist acts under Section 43(3)); custodial interrogation during police custody, authorized by Magistrate under Section 187 (up to 15 days total, in whole or part, within initial 40/60 days of 60/90-day detention period, allowing extended/flexible custody beyond CrPC’s initial 15-day limit); and remand extensions in terror cases, where overall judicial custody can reach 90 days for offences punishable with 10+ years/life/death (including terrorism), with default bail provisions but stringent application in grave matters, facilitating thorough investigation while balancing liberty safeguards.
Confessions and Evidence
While police confessions remain inadmissible, scientific, forensic, and electronic evidence is central to IED prosecutions. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prioritise forensic-led investigations, mandatory videography of searches, and enhanced evidentiary value of digital data, substantially strengthening conviction prospects in IED cases that depend on technical and circumstantial proof.
Preventive Detention Laws
The National Security Act, 1980 authorises preventive detention under Section 3 of individuals whose activities are prejudicial to national security, defence of India, or public order, including involvement in terror logistics or explosives procurement. Although frequently criticised for its implications on personal liberty, the NSA operates as a pre-emptive legal tool, enabling the State to thwart planned IED attacks before they materialise.
Financial Surveillance and Anti-Terror Funding Laws
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) targets the financial infrastructure of IED networks. Section 3 criminalises terror financing as money laundering, while Sections 5 and 8 enable attachment and confiscation of tainted assets. Through international cooperation mechanisms, PMLA dismantles the economic backbone sustaining IED-related terrorism.
Special Courts and Speedy Trial Mechanisms
Special Courts and Speedy Trials are provided under Section 11 of the NIA Act, 2008 and Section 22 of the UAPA, enabling designated courts to ensure expedited proceedings, witness protection, and secure handling of sensitive evidence, thereby strengthening deterrence and effective justice in terrorism and IED cases.
Victim Compensation and Reparative Justice
Legal responses to IED attacks extend beyond punishment to address post-attack consequences. State and Central victim compensation schemes and ex-gratia payments provide immediate financial relief to victims and their families. Constitutionally, victims may approach High Courts or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 seeking compensation and accountability, including scrutiny of intelligence or administrative failures that contributed to the attack.
IED attacks frequently involve cross-border elements, necessitating international legal cooperation. Extradition treaties enable the transfer of accused persons, while Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) facilitate evidence sharing, financial tracking, and intelligence cooperation. India also aligns domestic counter-terror laws with United Nations Security Council resolutions, reinforcing global legitimacy and compliance.
The Supreme Court of India plays a pivotal role by upholding the constitutionality of anti-terror laws, balancing civil liberties with national security, and insisting on procedural fairness. Judicial oversight ensures that counter-IED legal mechanisms remain effective, proportionate, and rights-compliant.
Challenges in Legal Enforcement
Despite the existence of a comprehensive statutory and institutional framework, several challenges continue to undermine the effective legal enforcement against IED-related offences:
- Prolonged delays in investigation and trials, leading to dilution of deterrence and erosion of public confidence in the justice system.
- Witness intimidation and reluctance to testify, particularly in insurgency-affected and remote regions, weakening prosecution cases.
- Misuse and overreach allegations under special laws, raising concerns regarding civil liberties, due process, and judicial scrutiny.
- Rapid technological evolution of IEDs, including remote detonation, low-metal content devices, and encrypted communication, outpacing existing legal and forensic capabilities.
- Evidentiary challenges in proving intent, conspiracy, and chain of custody, especially where circumstantial and technical evidence predominates.
- Limited forensic infrastructure and uneven expertise across states, resulting in inconsistent quality of evidence collection and analysis.
- Jurisdictional and coordination gaps between central and state agencies, causing delays and overlaps in investigation.
- Cross-border and transnational dimensions of IED supply chains, complicating attribution, extradition, and prosecution.
- Inadequate victim and witness protection mechanisms, discouraging cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
- Balancing national security imperatives with constitutional safeguards, often inviting prolonged litigation and legal uncertainty.
These challenges underline the necessity for continuous legal adaptation, institutional strengthening, and procedural reform to ensure that the law remains responsive, credible, and effective against the evolving IED threat.
Way Forward: Strengthening Legal Responses to IED Attacks
To effectively counter the evolving threat of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), India must reinforce its legal architecture alongside operational measures. Key steps include:
- Continuous updating of explosives and arms regulations to address emerging technologies, dual-use materials, and supply-chain vulnerabilities.
- Capacity building of investigators, prosecutors, and judges through specialized training in counter-terrorism laws, forensic evidence, and IED-related prosecutions.
- Deeper integration of cyber laws with forensic and anti-terror statutes, enabling lawful interception, digital evidence collection, and disruption of online radicalization and procurement networks.
- Strengthening inter-agency legal coordination among police, intelligence agencies, central and state investigative units, and state prosecutors to ensure seamless investigation and prosecution of IED related cases.
- Fast-track judicial mechanisms for IED cases to reduce delays, preserve evidence integrity, and enhance deterrence.
- Robust witness protection and evidentiary safeguards, especially in insurgency-affected and remote areas where intimidation is common.
- Enhanced victim-centric justice mechanisms, including compensation, rehabilitation, and legal aid for victims of IED attacks.
- Periodic legal audits and impact assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of counter-IED laws and judicial outcomes.
- Alignment with international legal frameworks and best practices, particularly in information-sharing and transnational IED financing controls.
A law-driven counter-IED strategy, grounded in accountability, due process, and victim justice, acts as a force multiplier—complementing military and intelligence efforts while strengthening the rule of law and public trust in counter-terrorism governance.
Conclusion
IED attacks represent a complex fusion of criminality, terrorism, and asymmetric warfare. India’s response through a layered legal architecture—spanning constitutional safeguards, criminal law, special anti-terror legislation, procedural innovation, financial regulation, and international cooperation—demonstrates that law is not a passive instrument but a central weapon in national security.
Effective utilization of these legal avenues ensures not only punishment after tragedy but prevention before devastation, reinforcing the rule of law even in the face of extreme violence.
