1|P a g e

i i

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

i i i i

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA i i

PROJECT TITLE i

Critical and Comparative analysis of Anti hijacking laws

i i i i i i i

SUBJECT
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI i Air and Space Law
i i i

NAME OF THE FACULTY

i i i

iI Prof Jogi Naidu

iiiii i i i

Name 0f the Candidatei i i

Pradeep Punuru iiiiiiii

R0ll N0. i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

2016076

Semester iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii

VII
i
2|P a g e
i i

Table of Contents

Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

The Anti Hijacking act 2016....................................................................................................4

Comparative analysis with provisions of 1934 and 1982 Anti Hijacking Act and why
changes made:...........................................................................................................................9

Conclusion:.............................................................................................................................15
3|P a g e
i i

Introduction

India played an important role in tackling theacts of the hijacking by introduction of various
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

laws from time to time however it is important for us to remember and analyse the laws and why
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the previous laws were repealed or amended subsequently and in my project I will also be
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

analysing the Anti hijacking act 2016 which played an important role in curbing the practise of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijacking and also I will be comparing the 2016 act with the previous acts for understanding the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

drawbacks of the previous acts and repealing the current act

i i i i i i i i i i i

The Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016 was introduced on 13th May 2016 and repealed the Anti-
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Hijacking Act of 1982 and give effect to The Hague Convention and the Beijing Protocol The
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Preamble to the Current Act states that the purpose of this Act is to give effect to the Hague
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention of 1970 and the Beijing Protocol of 2010 Moreover the Preamble to the 2016 Anti
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijackingAct also considers expedient that the unlawful acts of seizure or exercise of control of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

aircraft, which jeopardize safety of persons, and property is a matter of great concern. This had
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

to be addressed effectively by making suitable provisions for giving effect to the Hague
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention and the Beijing Protocol. 20161 act also states that whoever unlawfully and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service, by technological means or by

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

exercising force, coercion or any other form of intimidation, commits the offence of hijacking.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The Current Act includes several acts within the definition of hijacking including i.e. making a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

threat to commit an offence of hijacking or unlawfully and intentionally causing any person to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

receive such threat under circumstances that indicate that the threat is credible, attempt to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commit hijacking or abetment of hijacking, organizing or directing others to commit such an

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offence as mentioned above, participates as an accomplice in such an offence or the and

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

unlawfully and intentionally assists another person to evade investigation2, prosecution or

i i i i i i i i i i i

punishment, knowing that such a person has committed any such offence of hijacking or an
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offence as mentioned or that such person is wanted for criminal prosecution by law
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1
https://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2016/02/indian-anti-hijacking-law.htm
2
https://www.lawnn.com/india-introduces-new-anti-hijacking-law-stricter-penalties
4|P a g e
i i

In my project I will be explaining the provisions of the anti-hijacking act 2016 and making a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

critical analysis of the provisions and also in my project I will compare the effectiveness of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

anti hijacking act 2016 with the previous acts in India i.e. 1934 and 1982 acts and analysing
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

what the new act is offering than the previous acts and what are the effective changes made I
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

will also analyse the drawbacks of the 2016 act where few suggestions will also be made by me
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

considering the drawbacks I found in my analysis

i i i i i i i i i

The Anti Hijacking act 2016

i i i i

The Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016 was introduced on 13th May 2016 and repealed the Anti-
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Hijacking Act of 1982 and give effect to The Hague Convention and the Beijing Protocol. The
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

1982 Act was enacted to give effect to the Hague Convention and was last amended over two
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

decades ago in 1994. The hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight on 24th December 1999 from
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Kathmandu, Nepal to Kandahar, Afghanistan and the brutal and gruesome hijacking incidents
i i i i i i i i i i i i

in the United States on 11th September 2001 when hijacked civilian aircrafts were used as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

missiles for causing mass destruction in addition to numerous other threats to hijack aircrafts by
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

outlawed groups/organizations in the recent past, necessitated a fresh and thorough

i i i i i i i i i i i

examination of the country's preparedness to face such exigencies.

i i i i i i i i i

The Preamble to the Current Act states that the purpose of this Act is to give effect to the Hague
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention of 1970 and the Beijing Protocol of 2010. Furthermore the Preamble states that
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

India has acceded to the Hague Convention and consequently enacted the 1982 Act to give
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

effects to the provisions of the Hague Convention. It also reiterates as mentioned above that
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

India is a signatory to the Beijing Protocol and signed it on 10th September 20153. The Beijing
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Protocol as mentioned above deals with unlawful acts against civil aviation by new types of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

threats, which require comprehensive amendments to the 1982 Act.

i i i i i i i i i

Moreover the Preamble to the Current Act also considers expedient that the unlawful acts of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

seizure or exercise of control of aircraft, which jeopardize safety of persons, and property is a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

matter of great concern. This had to be addressed effectively by making suitable provisions for
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

giving effect to the Hague Convention and the Beijing Protocol. Section 3(1)4 states that
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

whoever unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service, by

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

3
https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer
4
www.civilaviation.gov.in/sites/default/files/Anti-hijacking Act, 2016 i i
5|P a g e
i i

technological means or by exercising force, coercion or any other form of intimidation,

i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commits the offence of hijacking.

i i i i i i

The Current Act includes several acts within the definition of hijacking including i.e. making a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

threat to commit an offence of hijacking or unlawfully and intentionally causing any person to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

receive such threatunder circumstances that indicate that the threat is credible, attempt to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commit hijacking or abetment of hijacking, organizing or directing others to commit such an

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offence as mentioned above, participates as an accomplice in such an offence or the and

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

unlawfully and intentionally assists another person to evade investigation, prosecution or

i i i i i i i i i i i

punishment, knowing that such a person has committed any such offence of hijacking or an
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offence as mentioned or that such person is wanted for criminal prosecution by law enforcement
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

authorities for such an offence or has been sentenced for committing such an offence as stated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

above.
i i

A person is also considered to have committed the offence of hijacking when committed
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

intentionally whether or not any of the offences specified in sub-section as stated above or in
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

sub clause of sub-section also stated above is actually committed or even attempted either when
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

agreeing with one or more other persons to commit an offence specified in section 3(1) or in
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

section 3(2)(a)5, involving an act undertaken by one of the participants in furtherance of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

agreement; and/or contributing in any manner to the commission of an offence specified in

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

section 3(1) or in section 3(2)(a) by a group of persons acting within a common purpose.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Furthermore, such contribution shall either be made with the aim of furthering the general i i i i i i i i i i i i i

criminal activity or purpose of the group where such activity or purpose involves commission of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

such an offence or be made in the knowledge of the group to commit such an offence. The
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Current Act goes a step ahead by even defining the term 'in-service'. An aircraft shall be
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

considered 'in service' from the beginning of the pre-flight preparation of the aircraft by ground
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

personnel or by the crew for a specific flight until twenty-four hours after any landing.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

It is to be further noted that in case of a forced landing, the flight shall be deemed to continue
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the said aircraft and for the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

persons and property on board such aircraftthe said Act provides for stringent punishments such
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

as death penalty where the offence results in the death of hostage or security personnel and life
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

imprisonment in all other cases. It also provides for the confiscation of moveable and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

immoveable property of the accused. For any acts of violence committed in connection with the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

5
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indias-tough-anti-hijacking
6|P a g e
i i

hijacking, the accused shall be punished with the same punishment as provided under the laws
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

in force if such act had been committed in India.

i i i i i i i i i i

Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction of an offence punishable under section 3 or section 5 as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

mentioned above if such an offence is committed within the territory of India, such an offence is
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

committed against or board an aircraft registered in India, such an offence is committed on

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

board and the aircraft in which the offence is committed lands in India with the alleged offender
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

is committed against or board an aircraft registered in India, such an offence is committed on

board and the aircraft in which the offence is committed lands in India with the alleged
offender still on board, such an offence is committed against or on board an aircraft which is
for the time being leased without crew to a lessee who has principle place of business or
where he/she has not such principal place of business, his permanent residence is in India,
such an offence is committed by or against a citizen of India; or such an offence is
committed by a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the territory of India and lastly
if such an offence is committed by the alleged offender who is present in India but not
extradited as per the extradition provision of the Current Act.

A notable inclusion in this Act has been that of a designated court on order to provide a
speedy trial while trying the offence of hijacking as stated above The accused person shall be
tried by a Sessions Court, which is notified to be a designated court by the concerned state
government. In case the investigation is carried out by the National Investigation Agency,
which is akin to the United State's Federal Bureau of Investigation, such designated court
shall be a court set under the provisions laid down in the National Investigation Agency Act,
20086 Such a designated court shall as far as practicable, hold the trial on a day-to-day basis.

The offences under sections 3 and 5 respectively as mentioned aforesaid shall be deemed to
have been included as extraditable offences and provided for in all extradition treaties made
by India with countries that are party to the Hague Convention and which extend to, and are
binding on, India since the new law on anti-hijacking has been enacted Furthermore, the
Current Act also provides that in order for the purpose of application of the Extradition Act,
1962 to offences specified under this Act an aircraft registered in a Hague Convention
country shall at any time while that aircraft is in service, be deemed to be within the
jurisdiction of that country whether or not it is for the time being also within the jurisdiction
of any other country.

6
https://www.lawnn.com/india-introduces-new-anti-hijacking-law-stricter-penalties
7|P a g e
i i

Also one of the offences mentioned in section 3 as stated above, shall be regarded for the
purpose extradition or mutual legal assistance, as a political offence or as an offence
connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives, A request for
extradition or for mutual legal assistance based on such an offence under section 3 for
hijacking shall not be refused on the sole ground that it concerns a political offence or an
offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives.

used in the commission of such an offence; or there is evidence of the use of force, threat or any
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

other form of intimidation caused to the crew or passengers in connection with the commission
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

of such an offence, the designated court as stated above, shall then presume unless the contrary
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

is proved, that the accused has committed such an offence.' The Current Act required that
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

sanction must be taken from the Central Government before prosecuting an accused for a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijacking or related offence.

i i i i i

The Central Government may confer powers of investigation, arrest and prosecution on any
i i i i i i i i i i i i

officer of the Central Government or the National Investigation Agency. Where an accused is
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

forwarded to a Magistrate to authorize detention because investigation could not be completed

i i i i i i i i i i i i i

within twenty-four hours, a Judicial Magistrate may authorize such detention in this regard for
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

up to thirty days An Executive Magistrate on the other hand is authorized to grant detention up
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

to seven days,the accused cannot be released on bail or bond unless the public prosecutor has
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

had an opportunity to oppose the releaseand if the said release has been opposed, the designated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the accused is innocent and is unlikely to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commit any offence while on bail.

i i i i i i

An investigating officer can order seizure or attachment of the property, which is related to the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offence, and is likely to be concealed or disposed off by the accusedAn order of confirmation of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the designated court is required within a period of forty-eight hours of the order being made as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

stated above which may either confirm or revoke the said order or attachment In case of an order
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

of attachment irrespective of it being confirmed by the designated court, the person aggrieved
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

may make an application to the designated court for revocation of the said order within a period
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

of thirty days from the date of such confirmation. Moreover, where any order is made by the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

designated court under section 4 as mentioned above for the confiscation of movable or
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

immovable property or both of the accused, then such property shall stand forfeited to the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Central Government free from all encumbrances. However this is provided that the designated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

court during the trial of the accused, order that all or any of the properties i.e. movable or
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
8|P a g e
i i

immovable or both, belonging to the accused be attached and in case the trial ends in a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

conviction, then the said property shall stand forfeited to the Central Government free from all
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

encumbrances.
i

The Current Act repeals the 1982 ActHowever the repeal of the 1982 Act shall not affect the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

previous operation of or anything done or suffered under or any action taken or purported to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

have been done or taken including any notification, order, or notice made or issued, or by any
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The Current Act repeals the 1982 Act However the repeal of the 1982 Act shall not affect the
previous operation of or anything done or suffered under or any action taken or purported to
have been done or taken including any notification, order, or notice made or issued, or by any
appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any authorization granted or any document
or instrument executed or any directions given under the 1982 Act7 so repealed in so far as it
is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Current Act.

Furthermore, they shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding
provisions of this proposed new legislation. The repeal of the 1982 Act shall also not affect
any right, privilege or obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the 1982 Act
or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed under
the 1982 Act or any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as stated above. Furthermore,
any such investigation legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced
and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the said 1982 Act had
not been repealed.

The Current Act focuses on achieving objectives such as expanding the scope of the
definition of hijacking as compared to the definition in the 1982 Act, defining the term 'in-
service' so as to cover the offence against aircraft even when it is on the ground or under
preparation for its departure, to provide capital punishment to conspirators and abductors,
besides hijackers, for any of the offences committed under the Act so that all persons
involved directly or indirectly in hijacking get similar punishment, to include confiscation of
movable and immovable property belong to offenders as part of the punishment, to widen the
provisions relating to jurisdiction and extradition, to confer powers of arrest, investigation
and prosecution on officers of the Central Government and to empower them to seize and

7
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/indias-tough-anti...
9|P a g e
i i

attached the properties belonging to offenders and to provide that all offences under the new
legislation shall be tried only by the court which is designated as per the Current Act.

Comparative analysis with provisions of 1934 and 1982 Anti Hijacking Act
and why changes made:

In section 2(b)8 of the Current Act, the term 'aircraft' is identified as any aircraft whether or
not it is registered in India. This excludes a military aircraft or an aircraft that is used in
customs or police service. While the term 'military aircraft' has been defined in section 2(f),
the term 'aircraft used in customs or police has not been defined in the Act therein leading to
ambiguity. The concerned Parliamentary Committee did in fact ask the reasons for the said
exclusion. It was informed by the Civil Aviation Ministry that the definition of 'aircraft' in
section 2(b) and of 'military service' in section 2(f) was retained from the Current Act

The Civil Aviation Ministry also brought to the notice of the Committee, Article 3 of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Chicago Convention of 1944 which stated that the Chicago Convention was applicable only to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

civil aircraft and not state aircraft, which included aircraft used in military, police and customs.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Furthermore the aircraft to be used by military, police and customs were for the official
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

purposes of the respective departments and not civil purposes. The officials who were travelling
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

in these aircraft were verified and known before boarding. Such travels were not scheduled and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

not known to the public at large, to plan such hijacking of such aircrafts by any anti-social
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

elements.
i i

Therefore, possibility of hijacking of such aircraft was remote whose security is taken care of by
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Civil Aviation Ministry This Ministry as per the Allocation of Business Rules is the nodal
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Ministry for all matters related with civil aviation including civil aviation security. According
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

to the Civil Aviation Ministry, the aircraft used by Governments for civil aviation purposes
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

have rights to overfly in the skies of other countries without any hindrance as per protection
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

under thedifferent freedoms of air and various international obligations On the other hand, the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

operation of the aircraft used by military, police or customs has restrictions to overfly over the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

territory of other countries, as the same would be treated as violation of their respective
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

8
https://legalperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/indian-anti-hijacking-law.htm
10 | P a g e
i i

airspaces. Military, police or customs operations are different from civil aviation operations and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

do not fall within the purview of international civil aviation.

i i i i i i i i i i

As per Section 4 of the Aircraft Act 1934, the Central Government may by notification in the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Official Gazette, make such rules as appear to be necessary for carrying out the Chicago
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention 1944 including any Annex thereto relating to international standards and
i i i i i i i i i i i

recommended practices as amended from time to time The Hague Convention as mentioned
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

above is basically for civil aircraft and not for State aircraft i.e. military, police or customs.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Taking this into account and the 1982 Act, no change has been made in the Current Act which
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

has also been vetted, by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The enactment of the 1982 Act was done to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

According to Civil Aviation ministry, the Hague Convention only relates to civil aircraft as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

defined in the Chicago Convention 1944 and not State aircraft used for the purpose of military,
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

police or customs. Therefore it has not included the hijacking of the same under the purview of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Current Act. I agree with the non-inclusion of the State aircraft i.e. military, police and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

customs from the Current Act like its non-inclusion in the 1982 Act However I disagree with the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

aforesaid reasoning given by the Civil Aviation ministry as noted in the Parliamentary
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Committee Report. In my opinion, in order to supplement the non-inclusion of the State aircraft
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

i.e. military, police and customs from the Current Act, it was essential to actually define these
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

terms in a precise manner. While the Current Act goes on to define the term 'military aircraft' by
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

taking it in verbatim from the 1982 Act, it fails to define aircrafts performing police and custom
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

services.
i i

The Indian Constitution in its Seventh Schedule provides for three lists being the List I- Union
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

List, List II- State List and ListIII- Concurrent Lis9t. Under the Union List, only the Central
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Government has the power to enact laws. The States have the power under the State List to enact
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

legislation whereas both the States and the Centre have legislative power making under the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Concurrent List with the central legislation prevailing over a state legislation in case of a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

conflict as per Part XI of the Constitution. Part XI deals with relation between Union and the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

States. There is an exception to this in cases "where a law made by the Legislature of a State
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provision
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State. Provided
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

9
https://www.firstpost.com/india/amendment-to-anti-hijacking-act-to-be..
11 | P a g e
i i

that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

made by the Legislature of the State. While law and order is a State subject under State List of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Indian Constitution with every State having its own police force, the Central Government
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

also has various law and order related agencies under its control.
i i i i i i i i i i i i

Such laws include the Central Armed Police Forces as well as other law enforcement and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

intelligence agencies. Only some of these law enforcement and intelligence agencies are
i i i i i i i i i i i i

included under the list of Central Police Organizations as published on the website of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Ministry of Homes Affairs, Government of India while even the others that are not included
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

perform functions akin to those covered i.e. law enforcement and intelligence gathering. We
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

think that by defining aircraft used for police and customs, it would have especially removed the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

ambiguity of the meaning of term 'police' for the aforesaid purpose by clarifying if it included
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

only police forces from the state; or even the Central Armed Police Forces/Central Police
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Organizations; or and whether it also included other law enforcement and intelligence
i i i i i i i i i i i i

agenciesand do not fall within the purview of international civil aviation.

i i i i i i i i i i i

As per Section 4 of the Aircraft Act 1934, the Central Government may by notification in the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Official Gazette, make such rules as appear to be necessary for carrying out the Chicago
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention 1944 including any Annex thereto relating to international standards and
i i i i i i i i i i i

recommended practices as amended from time to time The Hague Convention as mentioned
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

above is basically for civil aircraft and not for State aircraft i.e. military, police or customs.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Taking this into account and the 1982 Act, no change has been made in the Current Act which
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

has also been vetted, by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The enactment of the 1982 Act was done to implement the provisions of the Hague Convention.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

According to Civil Aviation ministry, the Hague Convention only relates to civil aircraft as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

defined in the Chicago Convention 1944 and not State aircraft used for the purpose of military,
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

police or customs. Therefore it has not included the hijacking of the same under the purview of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Current Act. I agree with the non-inclusion of the State aircraft i.e. military, police and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

customs from the Current Act like its non-inclusion in the 1982 Act However I disagree with the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

aforesaid reasoning given by the Civil Aviation ministry as noted in the Parliamentary
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Committee Report. In my opinion, in order to supplement the non-inclusion of the State aircraft
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

i.e. military, police and customs from the Current Act, it was essential to actually define these
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

terms in a precise manner. While the Current Act goes on to define the term 'military aircraft' by
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
12 | P a g e
i i

taking it in verbatim from the 1982 Act, it fails to define aircrafts performing police and custom
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

services.
i i

Intelligence agencies quite often run covert air operations without disclosing their actual i i i i i i i i i i i

identity and therefore we opine that the definition of 'police aircraft' would have cleared the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

doubt as to such aircraft would come within the ambit of state aircraftReadings of the various
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

provisions of the Hague Convention and the Beijing Protocol show that neither the Hague
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention nor the Beijing Protocol goes on to define police or customs aircraft. However, by
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

defining the same in the Current Act, which has replaced the 1982 Act, India which is a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

contracting party to The Hague Convention and seeks to ratify the Beijing Protocol, would have
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

gone a step further in making its new legislation on anti-hijacking more water tight. One of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

major shortcomings in the Current Act is the exclusion of the word 'preparation'. This should
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

have been included under section 3 of the Current Act either as a separate subsection or along
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

with any sub-section of the Act.

i i i i i i

The term 'preparation' is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code 186o in case of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

preparation to commit dacoity, preparation to wage war against the Government of Indiaand
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

depredation against any nation which is at peace with the Government of India.' This
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

amendment is required in order to cover all perpetrators of the crime of hijacking. Furthermore
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

a new provision namely sub-section 3 (2)(f) made be also inserted in the Current Act to cover
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

'hoax calls' with a proportionate punishment. This is because instances of receiving hoax calls
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

only creates panic and scare resulting in serious complications for passengers. It also causes a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

nightmare for security agencies that end up wasting their resources and time to verify the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

authenticity of the hoax calls. When the aforesaid Parliamentary Committee inquired from the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Civil Aviation Ministry regarding the inclusion of a sub-section for the punishment for making
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hoax calls, the said Ministry opined that the Current Act already covered instances of hoax calls
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

and the punishment for the offender in such cases was imprisonment for life and fine.' There is
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

thus no specific provision prescribing punishment for making hoax calls in particular to this
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

effect.
i i

This includes anyone on board an aircraft in flight, unlawfully, by force or threat of force or any
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

other form of intimidation, seizes or exercises control of that aircraft. Therefore it does not
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

explicitly specify hoax calls, which should have been inserted in the amendment. Moreover
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

even the terms' hostage' and 'security personnel'have not been defined in the Current Act. The
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Current Act as stated above, only prescribes a punishment with death where the offence of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
13 | P a g e
i i

hijacking results in the death of hostage or security personnelAlso, in the case of an intervention
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

especially an armed intervention by security personnel, there is a possibility of the death of

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

other persons. This may be by way of cross-fire or throwing of explosives or crashing of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

aircraft. Therefore in case of any such event, the maximum prescribe penalty should be imposed
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

on the offender that results in death of any person as a direct consequence of the offence of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijacking.
i i

Therefore section 4(a)10 of the Current Act may be modified to punish the offender with death
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

where such offence results in the death of any person including the hostage or security
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

personnel as a direct consequence of the offence of hijacking. Another noteworthy omission we

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

feel is that there has been a nonmention of any ground staff and security personnel at the airport
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

in section 5 of the Current Act While the aircraft is on the ground or is being prepared for
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

departure at the airport, the hijacker may commit the act of violence against any of the ground
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

staff or security personnel at the airport. In its current form, section 5 of the Current Act defines
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the punishment for acts of violence connected with hijacking and covers any act of violence
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

against any passenger or member of the crew of such aircraft.

i i i i i i i i i i i

This means that the punishment for the act of violence by the hijacker against any of the ground
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

staff or security personnel at the airport is not covered. In addition, even the term 'ground staff'
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

should be explicitly defined in the Current Act to avoid any unambiguous interpretation at a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

later stage. Also while the term 'seizes' has been used in section 3(1) of the Current Act, it has
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

not been specifically definedThe Current Act does not have a provision which provides for
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

taking appropriate measures, when any of the acts that come within the purview of hijacking are
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

committed, in order to restore control of the aircraft to its lawful commander or to preserve the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commander's control of the aircraft.

i i i i i i

There is no mention of a national law report as required under article 11 of the Consolidated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention. Such national report deals with reporting as promptly as possible ay relevant
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

information regarding the circumstances of the offence, the action taken pursuant to Article 9
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

ofthe Consolidated Convention and the measures taken in relation to the offender or the alleged
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

offender and in particular, the results of any extradition proceedings or other legal proceedings.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

There is no provision regarding India affording other State parties to the Consolidated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Convention, the measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in

i i i i i i i i i i i i

respect of the offences relating to hijacking The Current Act also does not include a provision
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

relating to India furnishing any relevant information as per the relevant Indian law, to any State
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

10
https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer
14 | P a g e
i i

parties to the Consolidated Convention, if it has the reason to believe that one of the offences
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

relating to hijacking will be committed. Such State parties would be the States as set forth in
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Articles 4(1) and Articles 4(2) of the Consolidated Convention as mentioned above11.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

It is surprising that neither did the Parliamentary Committee discuss this in their meetings while
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

drawing up the Current Act and neither did the Civil Aviation Ministry bring it to their notice.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The word intentionally has been used in section 3 of the Current Act. This has been done in
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

pursuance of the premise that in the commission of crime by any person, the basic ingredient in
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Indian judicial system is to prove intention for ensuring the commission of crime for
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

punishment and keeping this in mind, the language of section 3 as stated above, has been
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

retained as per the 1982 Act by the Ministry of Law & Justice of the Indian Government crime
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

with reference to Halsbury's Laws of England is defined as a wrong, which affects the security
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

or wellbeing of the public generally so that the public has an interest in its suppression. Lord
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Lane in R v. Williamsheld that the mental element necessary to constitute guilt is the intent to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

apply unlawful force to the victimThe Hon'ble Court as per Lord Lane did not believe that the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

mental element could be substituted by simply showing intent to apply force and no more.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

The Current Act has included death penalty to perpetrators of hijacking in case of death of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

ground personnel in section 5 and section 16(b). Another positive inclusion has been that of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

universal jurisdiction which is subject to the hijacker being India, or the hijacked aircraft being
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

registered in India or any foreign registered aircraft landing in India withthe alleged offender
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

still on board or when aircraft is hijacked anywhere in the world when an Indian citizen is on
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

board or when an aircraft is hijacked by a stateless person whose usual residential address is
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

India or (f) the alleged offender in India is not extradited.

i i i i i i i i i i i

Sections 11 to (3) of the Current Act deals with the provisions for extradition wherein it is stated
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

that the offences under section 3 and section 5 shall be deemed to have been included as
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

extraditable offences and provided for in all the extradition treaties made by India with the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Hague Convention countries and which extend to, and are binding on, India on the date of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

commencement of the Current Act becoming an Act of Parliament. Regarding the extradition of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijackers who are foreign nationals, in the absence of any bilateral extradition treaty, the Beijing
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Protocol may be used as a basis for seeking extradition of such foreign nationals. Once
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

extradited, the said foreign nationals would be tried in accordance with the law of the land. In
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

our opinion, another useful insertion in the Current Act has been the provision that provides all
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

11
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/indias-tough-anti
15 | P a g e
i i

offences under this new law being deemed to have been included as extraditable offences in all
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

extradition treaties made by India with The Hague Convention countries.

i i i i i i i i i i i

This provision further does not have any political ramifications since in accordance with the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Extradition Act 1962 as well as the Current Act, none of the offences mentioned under the new
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

law would be regarded as political offences for the purposes of extradition The Current Act has
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

retained section 10 of the 1982 Act that deals with the requirement of previous sanction of the
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Central Government for prosecution of an offence of hijacking in section 15 of the Current Act
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

This retention is a positive move since as per the Union list of the Indian Constitution, civil
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

aviation is a subject under the domain of the Central Government All permissions and approvals
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

relating to civil aviation matters all over India are granted by the Ministry of Civil Aviation of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the Indian Government and its attached departments/organizations such as the Directorate
i i i i i i i i i i i

General of Civil Aviation, which is akin to the United State's Federal Aviation Administration
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

and the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security whose American counterpart is the Transport Safety
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Administration.
i

It is to be further noted that there has been no mention whatsoever of the issue regarding
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

compensation in the Current Act Therefore necessary provisions shoulddefinitely be

i i i i i i i i i i

incorporated in the Current Act, which provide for such compensation to the victims of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijacking or their dependents Such compensation may commensurate depending on the death of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the victim or degree of seriousness of injury suffered Even the Beijing Protocol does not have a
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

similar provision and inserting it in the Current Act would definitely shed a positive light on
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

India's strong stance against aircraft hijacking and its concern for the victims of this unfortunate
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

tragedy.
i i

Conclusion:

On the whole though, it may be concluded that the Current Act does gives more teeth to the law
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

against hijacking of aircraft. The amendments essentially enlarge the definition of hijacking,
i i i i i i i i i i i i

hijacker as well as punishment. Although as stated above, the Current Act should have included
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

ground-handling staff, airport personnel and others killed during such incidents in addition to
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

flight crew and security personnel in section 5 The Current Act has endorsed however capital
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

punishment to abettors and conspirators who commit any act defined as hijacking in the said
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Act. The Current Act also gives security forces the right to immobilize an aircraft or even
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

prevent its take off, something, which is missing in the 1982 Act.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
16 | P a g e
i i

After the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814 in Kathmandu on New Year's Eve in 1999
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

as also dealt with above, the Indian Government felt it was necessary for providing the award of
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

death penalty to perpetrators of the act of hijacking Furthermore the incident of September 9,
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

2001 in the United States of America where aircrafts were used as weapons also played a key
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

role in the imposition of capital punishment However one problem may confront the Indian
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

Government during a hostage crisis because of this inserted provision of capital punishment.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

This is that ensuring death penalty for all hijacking related offences might close opportunities
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

for negotiation and settlement to save lives of passengers caught in the middle of such hijacking
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

incidents Moreover, another issue pondering over my mind is whether the imposition of death
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

penalty in the Current Act will actually have a deterring effect on hijackers who are on suicide
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

missions such as the gruesome hijacking incidents in the United States of America on 91h
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

September 2001.
i i

On whole compared to the predecessors the 2016 Anti-hijacking act is well equipped and
i i i i i i i i i i i i i

efficient however it is to be recommended that such act though is well equipped it is also
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

encouraging no chance to save the hostages once the hijacking taken place as there is explicit
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

provison of capital punishment and it is also important to note that no provisions with regarding
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the compensation for the deceased was mentioned in the act which is also a bit of concern.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i