A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANTI-HIJACKING ACT, 1982

This article is written by R. Malar Mitha in the 10^th Semester of the School of Law, Sathyabama Institution of Science and Technology, Chennai, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to investigate the legal framework surrounding area hijacking, using the Act as the case study. Thus, the goal is to ascertain the current state of the hijacking situation and evaluate the Indian government’s response. India is a growing nation that has experienced incredible growth in the aviation sector in recent years. By taking over the flights, several terrorist organisations aim to put pressure on the government. The true image of flight hijacking in India can be seen in several historical occurrences. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) was established by the Indian government to safeguard the aviation sector against terrorist acts. The government passed the Anti-Hijacking Act in 1982 to impose harsh penalties on the perpetrator. The Act was changed to allow for more expansive and stringent provisions that would strengthen India’s criminal justice system and allow it to take decisive action against hijacking. 

Keywords: Hijacking, Indian development, 1982 Act, 2016 Act, History, Importance of the act, Criticism, Conventions, Bill 2010, Anti-Hijacking Policy, Case laws.

INTRODUCTION

India is a developing nation, and similar to other nations on the subcontinent, its economy is expanding noticeably. India has been working to increase industrial productivity in a number of areas since gaining its independence, and aviation is one of those areas. India’s aviation industry has demonstrated a strong dedication to accomplishments in recent decades. Numerous assessments indicate that India has experienced the strongest development rate in Asia’s aviation sector in recent decades. However, India received a nice present in a lousy packet. Terrorists became interested in the aviation sector due to its extraordinary growth. They use dishonest tactics like hijacking to target the aviation sector in an attempt to gain what they want and impede the expansion of the Indian economy. [1] Terrorist organisations believed that hijacking was the best method to upset society and put pressure on the government while also allowing them to satisfy their illegal needs. A huge number of hijacking incidents have been made public.

Terrorist strikes against the nation whose flag is flown by aircraft have targeted the aviation industry for the past 70 years. The events of September 11, 2001, have brought international attention back to the specific act of aviation-related terrorism. The unauthorised seizure of an aircraft by an individual or group is known as aircraft hijacking also called as skyjacking, plane hijacking, plane jacking, air robbery, or air piracy, Specifically, the term “aircraft piracy” has been used inside the special aircraft jurisdiction. Since the first hijackings, the majority of them have involved the pilot being coerced into flying following the demands of the hijacker. Additionally, there have been instances in which the hijackers have taken control of the flight crew, entered the cockpit without authorization, and flown them into structures.

THE ANTI-HIJACKING ACT,1982

The illegal taking of an Associate in Nursing craft by an individual or group is known as aircraft hijacking. Most of the time, the hijackers force the pilot to fly by their instructions. The Associate in Nursing Act, also known as the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982, was created by the Indian Parliament in order to prevent the unauthorised takeover of aircraft registered in India. According to the act, anyone on board the wing who attempts to use force or threats to take control of the craft and use it for illegal purposes will be prosecuted for the crime of hijacking. If proven, the social control under such a charge was jail time and a fine. There are serious concerns facing the worldwide community, particularly the worldwide Civil Aviation Organisation, due to the rise in the diversity of hijacking occurrences and the growing threats to the safety of aircraft flights. In order to address this issue and punish the hijackers, numerous conventions are enacted.[2]

When a plane is hijacked, criminals have the ideal opportunity to further their agenda by negotiating with the authorities and utilising the passengers as their commodities in the barter system.  In fact, criminals have used this exact strategy in the past to successfully secure the release of convicts. The parliament’s two chambers passed the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 to prohibit the unauthorised seizure of aircraft registered in India. The statute states that anyone on board an aircraft in flight who unlawfully seizes or exercises control of that aircraft using force, threat of force, or any other form of intimidation is guilty of hijacking of that aircraft. Life in prison and a fine were the penalties for the same offence.[3]

Historical Perspective of the Act

In 1982, the Indian Parliament established a law prohibiting the unauthorised acquisition of aircraft registered in India. It was called the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982. Any person on board who tries to seize control of an aircraft by force, threats, or both is guilty of hijacking, according to the Act’s provisions. The offender faces a fine and a life sentence if the charges are confirmed. But the 1999 Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijacking brought the government to its knees and forced it to reassess and develop a rigorous anti-hijack plan. As a result, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) gave the Indian government permission to execute its Anti-Hijack program in 2005. Because of the continuous risk of rebel groups hijacking aeroplanes, legislators had to evaluate the law as it was and stay informed about these obligations. The Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016 was passed by Parliament in order to implement many international agreements, such as the Beijing Protocol of 2010 and the Hague Convention of 1971.

It also introduces some important improvements to the antiquated laws. Hashing, or the unauthorised taking of an aircraft, is a persistent concern to the security of the passengers in civil aviation. Notably, hijacking became more common in the early 1970s, and many countries desired to create a specific hijacking convention to address this problem. Consequently, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requested that its council create laws to address the hijacking issue as quickly as feasible during its sixteenth conference in September 1968. However, in response to the aircraft hijacking incidents, India adopted the “No Negotiation Policy” in 2005. Following that, the Anti-Hijacking Act was enacted in 2016 and went into effect on July 5th, 2017.[4]

Any passenger who forcibly takes control of the aircraft while it is in flight, using force, threats of force, or any other form of intimidation, is guilty of hijacking. The illegal seizing of a ship, aircraft, or land vehicle while it is in motion and the forced relocation of that vehicle to a different location against the wishes of its crew is referred to as hijacking. Undoubtedly, international law recognises both aircraft hijacking and ship hijacking as crimes against humanity.

Objectives of the Act

• In addition to giving “effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970 and its Protocol Supplementary, signed on September 10, 2010,” the Act repeals the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982.
• The primary goal of the act is to define “hijacking” more broadly by including the establishment of a threat to conduct the crime as a form of hijacking.
• Furthermore, it was considered advantageous “that the unlawful acts of seizure or exercise of control of aircraft” pose a risk to people’s safety and property. As a result, it is a very distressing issue that needs to be effectively handled by passing the necessary legislation to give the Convention, the Protocol, and any related matters effect.
• The Act also modified the definition to include people who plan or assist another person in committing the crime and to hold them accountable for aiding a hijacking.
• The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft is in line with the goals of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016. Additionally, the Act attempted to include the September 2010 Beijing Protocol, which is an addendum to the Convention. In essence, the Act addresses any type of illegal activity, including threats made against civil aviation.
• Additionally, the Act seeks to draw attention to the government’s concern for swift action in the event that unlawful acts of aircraft control or seizure occur. Because of this, people’s and property’s security may be at risk.

Response of the Government

The Indian government has implemented several stringent measures to combat hijacking, including amending Section 4 of the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 through the cabinet. It now carries a life sentence in prison as well as the death penalty. Regarding the difficulties surrounding hijacking, the administration is prepared to make additional changes during subsequent legislative sessions. In 2005, new policies were implemented to ensure that the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982, was legally sanctioned. These policies state that if hijackers intend to blow up a hostile jet in order to destroy strategic installations, they must take the required preparations.[5]

According to Indian government laws, any aircraft that is hijacked and turned into a hostile aircraft needs to be ringed by Indian fighter aircraft. According to the new policies, the security authorities will have extra authority to implement significant changes and make significant policy introductions involving hijacking in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The three categories of hijacked aircraft that BCAS has identified are rogue, questionable, and threat. A committee made up of the prime minister, the minister of home affairs, the minister of defence, and an air force officer not lower than the rank of assistant chief of staff will decide which aircraft, out of those classified as threats, will be shot down.

The anti-hijacking amendment bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha in August 2010 and was referred to the standing committee on tourism, culture, and transportation, which turned in a report in October of the same year. The primary goal of the law was to make changes to the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 and impose harsh punishments for acts related to hijacking. According to the revised Act, anyone attempting to take over an aircraft will be considered a hijacker and will face appropriate consequences. Facilitating a hijacking will also be regarded as hijacking. India was the country that adhered to the Anti-hijacking Act, 1982 for the longest. Given that India was one of the signatory nations to the Hague Convention, it was drafted in compliance with its provisions. But since these laws did not follow international agreements, they ought to have been modified a long time ago. The attacks were not as frequent as they were in the 1970s, and security had improved following the Kandahar hijacking event, so for some reason, there was no sense of urgency to change the legislation.[6]

Important Provisions

• Section 2(a)- Aircraft
• Section 2(b)- Hague Convention
• Section 3- Hijacking
• Section 4- Punishment for Hijacking
• Section 6(B)- Offences triable by Designated Court
• Section 11- Protection of good faith actions

THE ANTI-HIJACKING ACT, 2016

The Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982 was granted reforms, which were first discussed in 2010, but they were unable to pass. The Anti-Hijacking Modification Act was successfully voted into law in every residence in May, in addition to receiving the President’s assent. The Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016 is primarily broken into three chapters. The first chapter defines hijacking and covers many topics such as military craft, hostage situations, and craft. The defendant’s social control is covered in the second chapter. The CRPC, 1973’s provisions have been approved. The powers of the central government are explained in Chapter 2. It also establishes the law’s jurisdiction. The auxiliary provisions, such as the capacity to treat bound ships as eligible for registration in nations under the convention, are contained in the third chapter. those who are being honest and fulfilling their obligations while acting appropriately. The 2010 Peking Protocol and the 1971 Hague Convention are also impacted by the new measure. Among the significant changes found in the new bill are; Amendments to the definition of “hijacking” At present, the legal definition of hijacking is as follows: “Anyone who engages in the unlawful act of intentionally seizing or controlling a vessel through coercion, force, threat, intimidation, or any other technological means that results in the offence of hijacking”

Execution Provision and Central Government Role

• The law’s jurisdiction is changed to “universal.” Penalties: Section 3(1) of the Hijacking Act, 2016 (the opposing legislation) defines hijacking as:
• A rider or a trained worker who is killed as a result of hijacking faces the death penalty. If not, jail time is the penalty for hijacking.
• In addition, the Act of 2016 allows for the seizure of both immovable and mobile assets. Even the other offence committed during the hijacking would be brought against the hijacker. Additionally, it allows for a maximum thirty-day detention period in custody, and a bail application will not be granted unless the public attorney has a chance to object to it. If this were the case, the court would have to be at least somewhat satisfied that no hijacking offence was committed.[7]
• whether an offence is committed outside of India but the aircraft is registered or leased to Indians.

• whether the criminal is Indian or stateless but resides in India such in the case of an illegal Bangladeshi immigrant, or if the offence is committed against Indians, the new Act will still apply.

Significance of the new act

• The new laws may be a positive development as Asian countries become more adamant about how they will respond to cases of hijacking. A significant area of international aviation law that is causing widespread concern is hijacking.
• By modifying its regulatory framework and instituting measures to prevent hijacking, India has demonstrated its concern.
• The purpose of this act was to provide several warnings for the safety and security of travellers in the event of a hijacking. It will assist in overcoming the shortcomings of the current crisis management system while addressing hijacking situations.
• It suggests giving the authorities more authority and enforcing strict measures against people who make phone calls and disseminate false threats.
• The Standing Committee has backed the proposal to execute those who aid and abet others in carrying out any conduct classified as hijacking.
• Still, this committee had also stated that there would be no possibility of discussion or compromise to spare many lives of passengers if the death penalty was guaranteed for all hijacking acts. It has also questioned whether or not hijackers on suicide missions would be deterred by the death penalty.

The Indian Parliament passed the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 in order to implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, also known as The Hague Convention, 1970 for allied concerns. Additionally, on September 10, 2010, India signed the Supplementary Protocol to the Convention, which relates to criminal activities against aviation, and this Act gives it more weight. This Act defines a number of terms, including hostage, agency, aircraft, and military aircraft. Therefore, the definition of hijacking is as follows: “Anyone who unlawfully and knowingly uses force or threat of force, coercion, intimidation, or any other form of intimidation, or any technological means, to acquire or exercise control of an aircraft in service, commits the offence of hijacking.[8]

Additionally, the definition of hijacking now includes attempts, credible threats, and aiding and abetting of hijacking. As per the provisions of this Act, an aircraft is considered to be “in service” when it is being prepared for a specific flight by ground personnel or the crew, and continues to be so for twenty-four hours after any landing. In the event of a forced landing, the flight is considered to continue until the competent authorities assume responsibility for the aircraft, its occupants, and its property. Furthermore, if someone commits the crime of hijacking, they might be punished by death or life in jail, and their personal belongings, both mobile and stationary, could be seized. 

Also, the Act specifies the penalties for violent crimes related to the hijacking of an aeroplane. Furthermore, in order to file a complaint under this Act, prior approval from the Central Government is required. The act’s goal is to broaden the definition of “hijacking” by including in its definition the possibility of committing a hijacking violation. As a result, it is now criminal to intentionally and unlawfully intimidate somebody under circumstances that indicate a genuine threat. Furthermore, the amended term also includes individuals who plan or instruct others to commit a crime and holds them accountable for aiding and abetting the hijacking.[9]

Short Comings of the Act

• There are certain issues with the Act of 2016. Any craft, regardless of whether it is registered in an Asian country, is referred to as an “aircraft.” It does not, however, include any craft that is used in law enforcement or customs that should be contained.
• It should be enforced that provisions to conceal “hoax calls” with appropriate penalties be implemented. False calls cause fear, which puts passengers in grave danger. Together, they create a nightmare for security organisations, causing them to waste time and money trying to confirm the decision’s validity.[10]
• Furthermore, the Act doesn’t even define the phrases “hostage” or “security personnel.” The Act, as stated above, only stipulates that a hijacking offence will result in the death of a prisoner or a member of the security services. There is a possibility that other people will die in the event of associate intervention, especially when armed security agents are involved, so it is important to impose penalties.

• Likewise, the Act does not protect the landing field’s security staff or ground crew. A potential hijacker might harm the crew members on the bottom while the other vessel is submerged or getting prepared for departure. In its current form, the Act only addresses violence against passengers or airline workers and specifies the penalties for acts of violence related to hijacking. It ignores equally important acts of violence against security personnel or ground workers.
• For the safety of the crew and passengers inside the state, the Act even should have considered granting extraterritorial standing or immunity from jurisdiction if another aircraft is hijacked. This kind of regulation is sorely needed, especially in the event of the illegal seizure of another vessel. It should also apply to any or all instances of unannounced landings in a foreign nation.

Penalties

When it comes to punishment, the legislation stipulates that the offence must result in the death of a hostage or member of the security services, and in all other situations, the sentence is life in prison. Additionally, it stipulates that conspirators and kidnappers of any hijacking crime are subject to the death penalty in order to hold all parties accountable, whether directly or indirectly. The statute, for the first time, allows the property of a person found guilty under its provisions to be seized, both immovable and mobile. One other noteworthy addition is the establishment of a special court to expedite the trial process for offences including hijacking. The state government in question shall notify a sessions court to serve as the designated court for the trial of the accused.

One other noteworthy addition is the establishment of a special court to expedite the trial process for offences including hijacking. The state government in question shall notify a sessions court to serve as the designated court for the trial of the accused. This court will conduct the trial day-to-day, as far as is reasonably possible.

Important Provisions

Section 3(1): The act of hijacking is committed by anybody who forcibly and unlawfully “seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service of force or menace, by coercion or by using any other form of threat, even technological ones.”[11]

Section 4: Punishment for hijacking

Section 7: Jurisdiction

Section 14: Authority to handle specific aircraft registration in countries follow conventions

Section 15: Previous sanction necessary for prosecution

Section 21: Repeal and savings

OLD ACT VS NEW ACT

• The three main new introductions are a broader definition of “in service” for craft, the death penalty, and the penalty for false calls.
• Associate craft were considered to be “in service” under the prior Act from the moment the doors closed until every passenger exited. Aircraft “must be considered to be ‘in service’ from the beginning of the pre-flight adjustments made by the crew or by ground personnel for a designated flight till day whenever any landing,” the new Act states.
• In the case that an aircraft lands, the flight will be considered to continue until the appropriate authorities assume control of the aircraft.
• Even though the offence was committed outside of India, the new Act is applicable. Regardless of whether the vessel is registered in India or chartered to Indians, the offence is perpetrated against Indians, the wrongdoer is homeless but resides in an Asian country (for example, by living with an embezzled Bangladeshi immigrant), or the wrongdoer is Indian.

THE FUNCTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN AERIAL HIJACKING

1. HAGUE CONVENTION, 1970

We’ll conduct a thorough analysis of the Hague Convention to identify its weaknesses and provide areas for legal strengthening. In order to go deeper into the reasons why planes are typically hijacked and how these cases were handled by the authorities, we will also discuss a few plane hijacking cases. The cornerstone of Indian anti-hijacking laws is the Hague Convention, also known as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which was ratified on December 16, 1970, at the International Conference on Air Law in the[12]

Hague Convention. On November 12, 1982, India ratified the Hague Convention. The first international agreement to criminalise offences committed on board a civil aeroplane was the Tokyo Convention. Nevertheless, it overlooked acts of terror attacks, sabotage, and hijacking, creating a significant gap in the Convention. Thus, the Hague Convention of 1970 was created in order to close these gaps and address the growing number of hijackings that occur every year.

Nevertheless, a draught was sent to the ICAO in The Hague by the international community’s ICAO Legal Committee. By outlawing the “unlawful seizure” of an aircraft, this convention seeks to prevent terrorist assaults against civilian aeroplanes. Furthermore, it acknowledged hijacking as a distinct crime deserving of the death penalty. Members of the Hague convention is required to prosecute or extradite individuals who have committed hijacking.

2. TOKYO CONVENTION, 1963

On September 14, 1963, a diplomatic summit in Tokyo resulted in the signing of the Tokyo Convention, 1963. Nevertheless, it became effective on December 4, 1969.

The first convention to criminalise “jeopardising the safety of person or property” in civil aviation while an aircraft was participating in international flight was the Tokyo Convention of 1963, specifically Article 1. In addition, the parties undertook to take all necessary steps to restore or maintain control of an aircraft in the event that there was an unlawful takeover or threat of one on their territory. Additionally, the captain may disembark a suspected individual on any land where the aeroplane arrives, although the consent of the landing nation is required stated in articles 8 and 12 of the convention.

In addition, it stipulates that the illegal activities carried out on board an aircraft may be subject to jurisdiction by the State of register of the aircraft. It further said that all the parties to this treaty are required to restore control of the aircraft in the event that they anticipate or carry out such unlawful conduct. 

3. MONTREAL CONVENTION, 1971

On September 23, 1971, the Montreal Convention of 1971 was signed. In addition, it was implemented on January 26, 1973. [13]

Compared to the Tokyo Convention, the Hague Convention was quite advance. It did not, however, acknowledge the reality that these aerial attacks were meticulously planned and that those who oversaw them from the outside, in addition to those who unlawfully seized the aircraft, have equal responsibility. Moreover, it continued to offer no compensation or comfort for the crew members and innocent passengers who were taken hostage. As a result, the 1971 Montreal Convention expanded the reach even further. The fact that this law penalised those who did not support it was one of its major innovations. Similar to the Hague Convention, but encompassing unlawful interference with international civil aviation, is the Montreal Convention. 

4. MONTREAL PROTOCOL, 1988

All of the above conventions sought to address every issue that arose during a terrorist attack on a passenger aircraft. It would be appropriate, nevertheless, to note that all three conventions viewed terrorist activity through the prism of illegal activity and aircraft seizure, failing to acknowledge the reality that any terrorist activity near an aircraft, such as an airport, typically results in an equal amount of chaos.  

Furthermore, the Protocol addressed this matter and extended the reach of the Conventions from in-flight to in-service. The period of time covered by this protocol’s in-service was established as beginning when ground crew or people begin pre-flight preparation and ending twenty-four hours after landing. It is therefore abundantly evident that the goal of this Protocol was to safeguard both airport infrastructure and aircraft safety while on board.

THE ANTI-HIJACKING (Amendment) Bill, 2010

1. On August 19, 2010, Mr. Praful Patel, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, introduced the Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Bill, 2010 in the Rajya Sabha.  The Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism, and Culture was tasked with reviewing the Bill; it turned in its findings on October 18, 2010.
2. The Bill imposes criminal penalties in relation to aircraft hijacking and changes the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982.[14]
3. Based on the Act, hijacking an aeroplane carries a life sentence in jail as well as a fine.  The Bill strengthens the penalties to include the death penalty, life in prison, and a fine.
4. According to the Act, anyone who attempts or assists in the hijacking of an aircraft would be prosecuted as a hijacker and face the appropriate penalties.
5. The Bill makes it clear that someone will be regarded as a hijacker whether they attempt or assist in the hijacking of an aircraft alone or in concert with others.

NEW ANTI-HIJACK POLICY

Strong anti-hijack policy guidelines have been agreed by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), nearly six years after the tragic hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft from Kathmandu. They applaud the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for deterring potential hijackers and preparing the country for the unlikely event that shooting down an aircraft is necessary for the greater good of the country. To reach a consensus on the issue before giving the strategy its final form, it would have been preferable, nevertheless, if the policy guidelines had been discussed in advance with the leaders of the opposition and all of the ruling UPA parties. If history serves as any indication, it can be predicted that Indian political parties of all stripes will engage in their customary brand of polarising politics in the event of a true crisis, making it difficult or impossible for the current administration to carry out the strategy.

For nations like India that are threatened by Islamist terrorism, a strict anti-hijack policy that involves shooting down a hijacked aircraft that is approaching a vital installation or structure is an inevitable choice in the post-September 11 the environment. As a matter of policy, the US, Russia, and Israel do not bargain with those who kidnap and hold hostages. It is vital to explicitly state the government’s policy of not bargaining with hijackers on demands that compromise national security in order to convey a clear message to future hijackers that they will not receive the rewards of their stupid conduct, no matter what.

It’s true that it would not be simple to put into effect a very strict policy in letter and spirit. Considering the track record of disorganised decision-making and inept bureaucracy, one wonders if the national security managers could swiftly and definitively ascertain that armed hijackers had transformed a passenger airliner into a flying weapon of mass destruction and that the aircraft was approaching a critical target. Consider the following scenario: minutes after taking off from Delhi airport, a domestic airliner is hijacked, and the Air Traffic Control[15] (ATC) discovers that it has veered off course and is flying towards the Parliament House, which is currently in session.

Finally, the policy guidelines that the government has released are essentially actions related to consequence management. A thorough and all-encompassing counter-hijack policy ought to place more emphasis on preventing hijacking in order to avoid a crisis situation before it arises. Increased security at airports, an effective and reliable system for screening bags, passenger identity checks and physical searches, among many other measures, are being implemented or have already been implemented in numerous airports across the globe. It is imperative that Indian authorities make gradual investments in the enhancement of both physical and human resources to enhance security at all airports nationwide. The obvious conclusion is that prevention is better than treatment.

The following list of preventative actions is suggested:

1. A team of experts might examine and evaluate the whole case files of prior hijackings to find security holes and systemic weaknesses that need to be fixed.
2. In some domestic airports, special cells may be established to gather information about terrorist organisations’ activities and potential accomplices within airline and airport authority personnel.
3. At regular intervals, the workers responsible for baggage handling, maintenance engineering, catering, cleaning, and refuelling must undergo screening and have their background checks confirmed.
4. It is necessary to require all passengers to go through the designated security procedures. For politicians, bureaucrats, uniformed officers, and others, there should be no relaxation.
5. It should be investigated whether it is feasible to seal cockpits with armour-plated doors in order to keep hijackers out and prevent them from deploying sky marshals on board.
6. According to the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982, the only penalty for hijacking is presently life in prison. The Act ought to be changed to make hijacking a capital offence.
7. It is past time for India and other nations impacted by international terrorism to demand the establishment of an international regime that will classify hijacking as a terrorist act and impose penalties on those that aid, abet, or shelter hijackers.[16]

CASE LAWS

1. Birju Kishore Kumar Salla VS State of Gujarat:

In the case, the Honourable Court found Mr Salla guilty of violating the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 because he had left a threatening note in a Jet Airways aircraft for his own peculiar and personal reasons. He believed that by doing so, Jet Airways would be forced to close, and in addition, he expected his girlfriend to return to him in Mumbai. For these reasons, he was found culpable and is currently serving a life sentence in prison along with a five crore fine. Even though he didn’t legally intend to hijack the plane or harm anyone, leaving a threat note qualifies as an illegal act, for which he was held accountable.[17]

2. The Famous D.B. Cooper Plane Hijack:

D.B. Cooper, the name given by the media to an unidentified man who took control of an airline 727 plane in the United States, was wearing a white shirt, a dark suit, a tie with a pearl tie pin, a hat, a slim frame, and a dented top. He carried a briefcase and carried himself with the demeanour of a creditable gentleman.[18]

But as soon as he handed the young stewardess a note as soon as the plane took off, something seemed strange. He even showed her a peek of wires and what appeared to be dynamite after writing, “I have a bomb,” on the message. He also instructed the pilot to maintain altitude and to provide him the supplies he needed. His deed had been successful; armed with twenty-one pounds of $20 bills a total of $200,000 obtained as ransom—and strapped to his chest, he had threatened and taken control of an aircraft, a 727.

Aircraft 727 had been hijacked by a lone individual. He dove off the back of the aircraft with the money, two backpacks, and a parachute. The devil-in-disguise D.B. Cooper, whose genuine name has never been established, has only been speculated about for more than forty years. Despite the FBI conducting a continuous investigation against him for 45 years following the hijacking, he has never been apprehended for any of his crimes.

3. 9/11 Plane Hijackings:

These are the three most dangerous plane hijackings ever. Three of the four planes American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175 were used as cruise missiles for suicide bombings on buildings after 19 terrorists hijacked them. Only the occupants of the plane perished in the fourth flight, which was intended to assault the White House building, but was diverted by the crew and passengers by fighting the hijackers. In all, around 3,000 people were slain in these four hijackings.

The Pentagon was one of the best-protected public structures in the USA, along with the nearby White House. According to eyewitnesses and authorities, the hijacked aircraft first touched down on the ground before moving and slamming into the structure.

A second plane from Boston crashed on the 60th floor of the WTC, while the first plane that fell into the 80th floor of the building was hijacked after it took off from Boston for Los Angeles. A plane that was hijacked out of Washington and brought back to the United States slammed into the Pentagon’s West Wing, destroying three of the five concentric rings of offices. A deep alarm was raised by the aforesaid devastating strikes that caused massive disruption and destruction. Thousands of individuals from 78 different nations endured terrible injuries, and over 6000 people lost their lives.

4. Indian Airline Flight 405:

Nine hijackers caused Indian Airlines Flight 405, an Airbus A300 carrying 254 passengers and ten crew members on a domestic flight from Srinagar Airport to Delhi-Palam Airport, to be flown to Lahore Airport in Pakistan on July 5, 1984.

The hijackers carried fake bombs, daggers, and firearms. Their requests included the return of objects purportedly taken from the Golden Temple during the Operation, US$25 million for damage caused, and the release of prisoners (all Sikhs imprisoned during Operation Blue Star). The hijackers eventually turned themselves in to Pakistani authorities on July 6 after their demands were not satisfied.

According to the Press Trust of India, the hijackers said, “Long Live Khalistan” It has to do with the separatist movement in Punjab, India, where Khalistani separatists were prominent.[19]

They wanted Sikhs to live in their own nation. Following the Indian army’s invasion of the Golden Temple, a small section of the Sikh community publicly demanded a separate nation for themselves Khalistan during the separatist movement in Indian Punjab and the United Kingdom.

5. Indian Airline Flight 421:

On August 24, 1984, Indian Airlines Flight 421 (IATA No.: IC421), The airline 737-2A8, carrying 74 passengers on a domestic flight from Delhi-Palam Airport to Srinagar Airport, was hijacked by seven members of the All-India Sikh Students Federation, an organisation that is now banned. The hijackers demanded to be flown to the United States. The aircraft flew to Lahore, Karachi, and Dubai, where Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the UAE’s minister of defence, negotiated the passengers’ release and the hijackers’ surrender to UAE authorities.

It has to do with the rebellion of secessionists in the Indian state of Punjab. In the Indian Punjab and the United Kingdom, a small section of the Sikh community publicly demanded a separate nation for themselves, which they called “Khalistan.” After the hijackers were extradited by UAE authorities to India, the Indian authorities turned over the pistol that had been found on the hijackers.

On August 24, 1984, an Indian Airlines flight (IC 421) carrying Indian civil servant K. Subrahmanyam was hijacked. Later on, in court, the imprisoned hijackers stated that Subrahmanyam was the one who “planned the entire hijacking to examine nuclear installations in Pakistan.”

Anil Sharma’s book IA’s Terror Trail made reference to the IC 421 hijacking. A significant portion of the plot of the 2021 Hindi film Bell Bottom also involved this hijacking. From 1971 to 1999, Indian Airlines the country’s only domestic carrier until 1993 saw sixteen hijackings.[20]

Early on August 24, 1984, 122 people boarded Indian Airlines flight IC421, which was headed for Srinagar via Chandigarh and Jammu. The flight took off from Palam Airport in New Delhi. Thirteen people boarded the flight to Jammu and Srinagar after 67 passengers disembarked in Chandigarh. Seven Sikh passengers, who were reportedly in their twenties and brandishing kirpans, surged into the cockpit at 7:30 AM and overthrew Captain V.K. Mehta. The hijackers took control of the cockpit and made the captain flythe plane to Amritsar, passing over theGolden Temple, the main Sikh shrine that had been stormed by the Indian Army in June of that year as part of an anti-terrorist operation.

CONCLUSION

The issue of aerial hijacking has long been of concern since, in the event of a hijacking, it brings the entire nation to its knees and, frequently, results in the deaths of numerous innocent people as the hostages are left at the whim of the hijackers. The nation as a whole suffers when the relevant government fails to safeguard its population, in addition to the specific airline. However, the number of hijacking instances has drastically decreased as a result of stronger security and more stringent rules. The attacks haven’t completely halted, so the authorities shouldn’t get comfortable with the status quo just because they’ve decreased in quantity. Thus, the changes ought to be made often to ensure that the world doesn’t see another tragic hijacking in which innocent people die. 

India saw about 19 hijackings before this Act. By putting this Act into effect, it had a negative effect on the nation. These organisations are being forewarned to take a step back. because Indian legislators create legislation to protect their citizens’ security. When tragedy happens to Indian citizens, they promise to do everything in their power to provide justice. Everything can always be made better thus; this act also needs to be improved. But as things stand right now, they’re better than they were before. Comparing the Anti-Hijacking Modification Act of 2016 to the 1982 Act or the 1994 Amendments, a significant number of improvements are included. With the passage of this act, Indian law undoubtedly takes a stronger stance against situations involving hijacking because it requires both human and technology to operate extremely cautiously in order to protect passengers. The Beijing convention of 2010 has also influenced the new legislation, which has gained international recognition since numerous nations have based their civil aviation rules on this convention.

REFERENCES

1. Legal Regulation of Aerial Hijacking: Indian Perspective, extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1485838122_N536_IJSTM.pdf  (November 02, 2023).
2. Legge Rhythms, https://leggerhythms.org/an-overview-on-anti-hijacking-act/ (November 02, 2023)
3. Bn’w, https://bnwjournal.com/2020/07/14/analysis-the-anti-hijacking-act-2016/ (November 02, 2023)
4. Tutorials Point, https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview  (November 02,2023)
5. Aishwarya Sandeep, https://aishwaryasandeep.in/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-background-objectives-salient-features/ ( November 02, 2023)
6. Mainstream Volume 31, Issues 30-52, 1993, https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Mainstream/XGLhAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=A%20Critical%20analysis%20of%20The%20Anti-Hijacking%20Act,%201982, (November 02, 2023)
7. The Wire Law, https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer (November 03, 2023
8. Legal Service India E-Journal, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4787-critical-analysis-of-the-hague-convention-with-reference-to-india.html ( November 03, 2023)
9. I Pleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/aerial-hijacking-and-international-law-a-critical-study/#Indian_laws_for_aerial_hijacking (November 03,2023)
10. PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-amendment-bill-2010 (November 03, 2023)
11. United Service Institution of India, https://www.usiofindia.org/publication-journal/new-anti-hijack-policy-a-critique-2.html (November 03,2023)
12. Social Laws Today, Aircraft Hijacking- Meaning, History, Causes & Law – Social Laws Today (November 03, 2023)
13. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_405 (November 03, 2023)
14. News Analysis, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016 (November 03, 2023)

---

[1] Legal Regulation of Aerial Hijacking: Indian Perspective,

extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1485838122_N536_IJSTM.pdf  (November 02, 2023).

[2] Legge Rhythms, https://leggerhythms.org/an-overview-on-anti-hijacking-act/ (November 02, 2023)

[3] Bn’w, https://bnwjournal.com/2020/07/14/analysis-the-anti-hijacking-act-2016/ (November 02, 2023)

[4] TutorialsPoint, https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview  (November 02,2023)

[5] Aishwarya Sandeep, https://aishwaryasandeep.in/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-background-objectives-salient-features/ ( November 02, 2023)

[6] Mainstream Volume 31, Issues 30-52, 1993, https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Mainstream/XGLhAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=A%20Critical%20analysis%20of%20The%20Anti-Hijacking%20Act,%201982, (November 02, 2023)

[7] Legge Rhythms, https://leggerhythms.org/an-overview-on-anti-hijacking-act/ (November 02, 2023)

[8] Aishwarya Sandeep, https://aishwaryasandeep.in/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-background-objectives-salient-features/ (November 03, 2023)

[9] The Wire Law, https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer (November 03, 2023

[10] Legge Rhythms, https://leggerhythms.org/an-overview-on-anti-hijacking-act/ (November 03, 2023)

[11] TutorialsPoint, https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview  (November 03,2023)

[12] Legal Service India E-Journal, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4787-critical-analysis-of-the-hague-convention-with-reference-to-india.html ( November 03, 2023)

[13] I Pleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/aerial-hijacking-and-international-law-a-critical-study/#Indian_laws_for_aerial_hijacking (November 03,2023)

[14] PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-amendment-bill-2010 (November 03, 2023)

[15] United Service Institution of India, https://www.usiofindia.org/publication-journal/new-anti-hijack-policy-a-critique-2.html (November 03,2023)

[16] I Pleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/aerial-hijacking-and-international-law-a-critical-study/#Indian_laws_for_aerial_hijacking (November 03,2023)

[17] Bn’w, https://bnwjournal.com/2020/07/14/analysis-the-anti-hijacking-act-2016/ (November 03, 2023)

[18] Social Laws Today, Aircraft Hijacking- Meaning, History, Causes & Law – Social Laws Today (November 03, 2023)

[19] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_405 (November 03, 2023)

[20] News Analysis, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016 (November 03, 2023)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.