The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on January 5, 2026, has expanded the interpretation of a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court stated that a 'terrorist act' is not solely confined to conventional violence but also includes conspiracy to disrupt essential supplies or services, even through non-violent means. This crucial interpretation was delivered while the apex court denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. Concurrently, the Court granted bail to five other co-accused — Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad — distinguishing their roles as merely facilitative compared to Khalid and Imam, who were deemed the 'architects' or 'ideological drivers' of the alleged conspiracy. The Supreme Court particularly focused on the phrase "by any other means of whatever nature" within Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA. It held that planned actions, such as coordinated road blockades ('chakka jams') intended to paralyse civic life or threaten India's economic security, could prima facie fall within the definition of a terrorist act, even without the use of conventional weapons. The Court emphasized that the focus is on the design, intent, and effect of the act, not just the weapon used. Legal experts and other news outlets like The Hindu and The Leaflet have corroborated this ruling, with some expressing concerns that this expansive interpretation could have wide-ranging implications for civil liberties and the criminalization of political dissent in India. This judgment significantly lowers the bail threshold under UAPA and potentially strengthens prosecutorial discretion in protest-related cases.