A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANTI-HIJACKING ACT, 1982

This article is written by R. Madhu Mitha of Sathyabama institute of science and technology of 10^th semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

India is a growing nation that has experienced incredible growth in the last several years in the aviation sector. By taking over aircraft, many terrorist organisations aim to exert pressure on the government. The true image of flight hijacking in India can be seen in a number of historical occurrences. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) was established by the Indian government to safeguard the sector against acts of terrorism. To impose harsh penalties on the perpetrator, the government passed the Anti-Hijacking Act in 1982. The Act was changed to allow for stronger and more expansive measures that would support India’s criminal justice system in enforcing tighter laws against hijacking. In this article we will see more about the Act.

KEYWORDS:

Hijacking, 1982 Act, 2016 Act, 2010 bill, 2014 bill, Objectivise, difference of acts, hijacking in other countries, conventions, prevention and control.

INTRODUCTION

The hijacking or illegal capture of an aircraft is an ongoing threat to the safety of passengers in civil aviation. Significantly, the frequency of hijacking grew in the early 1970s, and several countries wanted to establish a hijacking convention to address this issue. As a response, at its sixteenth conference in September 1968, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requested that its council create laws to address the hijacking situation as quickly as feasible.[1] 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 in accordance with 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 a 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 confirmed, the social control under such a charge was imprisonment time and a fine. There are serious concerns facing the worldwide community, particularly the worldwide Civil Aviation Organisation, due to the diversity of hijacking episodes that are occurring and the growing threats to aircraft flight safety. In order to address this issue and punish the hijackers, numerous conventions are enacted. However, in response to the hijacking of an airplane, India enacted the “No Negotiation Policy” in 2005. Following that, in 2016, the Anti-Hijacking Act was enacted, and it went into effect on July 5, 2017.

When the Indian Airlines aircraft, often referred as IC-814, was returning to the city from Kathmandu, Nepal, in December 1999, it was hijacked. The Indian government was compelled to unleash three terrorists, including Maulana Masood Azhar, Ahmed Saeed ruler, and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, despite numerous attempts at settlement with the hijackers. Every passenger experienced a fatality, while numerous others suffered injuries. Following an investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) charged ten people, seven of whom were evading capture along with the five hijackers. Life in jail was handed down to the three individuals who were accused of serving the hijackers.[2]

WHAT IS HIJACKING?

Hijacking the term means the illegal seizure of a ship, aircraft, or land vehicle while it is in motion and the forced relocation of that vehicle to a different site against the crew’s desires is known as hijacking. Undoubtedly, international law recognises both aircraft hijacking and ship hijacking as crimes against humanity. Certain individuals who hijack vehicles aim to detain passengers or the crew in return for a ransom money or a diplomatic or administrative agreement from the relevant government.[3]

The act of unlawfully using force while aboard an aircraft in flight, threatening to use force, or using any other type of intimidation to attempt to take control of the aircraft or capture it, is known as hijacking. As a result, the aviation industry and the crime of hijacking on board an aeroplane are the subject of three international conventions. Therefore, the forcible and illegal seizure of an aircraft by a person or group is referred to as “aircraft hijacking,” sometimes known as “skyjacking

THE ANTI-HIJACKING ACT, 1982

The Anti-Hijacking Act was passed on November 6, 1984, to put into effect the terms of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, which was signed on December 16, 1970. India made a statute and acceded to the Treaty in order to abide by international law and other connected topics. The Act covers offences committed by individuals abroad as well as the entire Indian Territory. The definition of “aircraft” under the Act is, any registered or unregistered aircraft in India; it excludes aircraft owned by the armed services, customs authorities, or law enforcement. A person or group of people is considered to have committed the crime of hijacking when they illegally take control of an aeroplane using coercion, threats, or any other kind of terrorization. In accordance with the Act, attempting or aiding in the use of force or intimidation constitutes a criminal violation.[4]

The Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Act of 1994 introduced a new clause that allows the Central government to give an officer of such government the authority to make arrests, conduct inspections, and carry out police-style prosecutions without going beyond the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. In this sense, it is required of police officers and government employees to support the officer the government appoints in accordance with the Act. The Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Act, which was passed in 1994, amended the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982. It included provisions regarding bail requirements and presumptions that an individual is presumed to have committed the crime if they have been found in possession of weapons or explosives, or if they have threatened or used violence. In addition, a bill to further alter the Anti-Hijacking Act has been presented in the Rajya Sabha with the intention of punishing hijacking offenders with death.[5]

HISTORY OF THE ACT

The Indian Parliament passed a law in 1982 to outlaw the unapproved acquisition of aircraft registered in India. It is 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 in 1999 Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijacking brought the government to its knees and forced it to reconsider 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 programme in 2005. Because rebel organisations continued to threaten to hijack aeroplanes, legislators had to evaluate existing laws and stay informed about these requirements. 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. The history of hijacking incidents in India is the source of the Indian Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016. The growing number of these instances as the 20th century came to an end necessitated the creation of an efficient legislative framework to deal with this security risk.[6]

The purpose of the Act was to bring the current aviation security legislation up to date with international treaties and standards while also strengthening and modernising them. But the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 814 brought the government to its knees and made it reevaluate and create a strict anti-hijack strategy. Thus, in 2005, the Indian government approved the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and implemented the Anti-Hack strategy. The ongoing threat of rebel groups hijacking aircraft forced lawmakers to assess the current laws and increase their attention to these criteria. In order to put several international agreements, including the Beijing Protocol of 2010 and the Hague Convention of 1971, into force, the Parliament enacted the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016. Furthermore, it brings about a number of broad revisions to the current laws that were out of date.

OBJECTIVIES

• The act’s main objective is to expand the meaning of “hijacking” by adding the threat of hijacking to the list of acts it covers.
• It deemed necessary “because the criminal acts of seizure or exercise of control of aircraft is subject to the security of persons and property.” This makes it a major issue that needs to be efficiently handled by enacting suitable legislation for the Convention’s and the Protocol’s implementation, as well as for any concerns pertaining to them.
• The Act also changed the term to punish those responsible for helping a hijacking accountable and to include those who organise or support another individual in executing a crime.
• The Convention for the Suppression of Illegal Aircraft Possession aligns with the objectives of the 2016 Anti-Hijacking Act. Furthermore, an attempt was made by the Act to add the September 2010 Beijing Protocol to the Convention. The Act successfully tackles all unlawful actions, including the offence of endangering civil aviation.
• The Act also seeks to highlight the government’s concern on the necessity of swift action in cases of illegal aircraft control or seizure due to the possible risk to material and personal security.
• The Act also lays out the consequences for engaging in aggressive behaviour in connection with the theft of an aircraft. Furthermore, prior clearance from the Central Government is necessary before submitting a complaint under this Act.
• The act seeks to enlarge the meaning of “hijacking” by adding the threat of committing a hijacking offence to the list of crimes. Because of this, it is now illegal and malevolent to purposefully intimidate another person when there is a real threat. The revised definition also covers those who assist in the hijacking of an aeroplane as well as those who arrange or oversee the commission of the crime.
• Another important feature of the new law is the concept of universal jurisdiction, which stipulates that < if the hijacker is Indian, if the hijacked aircraft is registered in India, if any foreign registered aircraft lands in India with the alleged offender still on board, or when the aircraft is hijacked anywhere in the world and an Indian citizen is on board.[7]
• Hijacking attempts, sincere threats, and aiding and abetting are all included in the definition of hijacking. As per the Act, an aircraft is deemed to be “in service” when the crew or ground staff initiate pre-flight preparations for a particular flight and persist for a full day following any landing. in the event of a forced landing, the flight is considered to continue until the appropriate authorities assume responsibility for the aircraft, people, and property on board.”

THE ANTI HIJACKING ACT, 2016

In accordance with the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016 was passed. Additionally, the Act attempted to include the September 2010 Beijing Protocol, which is an addendum to the Convention. The Act basically addresses all illegal activities, including the offence of posing a threat to civil aviation. Additionally, the Act aims to draw attention to the government’s concern that prompt action be taken in cases of unlawful aircraft control or seizure. Because of this, people’s and property’s security may be at risk. 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, with weight given by this Act. Several terminologies are defined in this Act, such as hostage, agency, military aircraft, security staff, and aircraft. The definition of hijacking is thus as follows: “The offence of hijacking is committed by anyone who unlawfully and intentionally seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service through pressure, threats of force, intimidation in any other way, or use of any technology.”[8]

IMPORTANT SECTIONS

• SECTION 3(1) – The act of hijacking is defined as when someone knowingly and criminally “seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service of force or menace or using force or intimidation of any other type, including through the use of any other technology.”
• SECTION 4 – (a) with death in cases where the hijacking directly causes the death of a hostage, a security guard, or any other person not directly involved in the offence; (b) with life imprisonment, which entails serving out the balance of the offender’s natural life in prison, a fine, and the possibility of having their personal property seized.[9]
• SECTION 7 – outlines the jurisdiction of the court 
•  In India.
• Against a plane with an Indian registration
• Either by or against an Indian citizen;
• aboard a plane that lands in India while the accused is still on board;
• By an individual who is in India and has not been granted extradition by the national government, etc.
• SECTION 14 – Certain aircraft may be “treated as registered in such Convention countries as may be indicated in the notification,” according to the Central Government’s authorization.
• SECTION 15 – The central government must first have approved any case initiated under this Act.
• SECTION 21 – Penalties, forfeitures, investigations, and other legal actions may all be carried out as though the aforementioned Act had not been repealed.[10]

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOTH THE ACT

• The significant new additions square measure the death penalty, sentence for hoax calls, and a broader definition of craft “in service.”
•  Under the previous Act, a vessel was considered “in service” between the moment the doors closed and the time each traveller exited. According to the new law, “a craft shall be thought of to be ‘in service’ from the start of the pre-flight preparation of the craft by ground personnel or by the crew for a selected flight till day when any landing”.
• If an aircraft crashes, “the flight shall be deemed to continue until the competent authorities assume responsibility for the aircraft.”
• Even if the offence is committed outside of India, the new Act applies. However, if the vessel is registered in India or chartered to Indians, or if the wrongdoer is Indian, or if the offender is homeless but lives in an Asian country, or if the offence is done against Indians, the offence is committed against Indians.
• Under the former act, it was assumed that in the service between the time the doors closed and the time every passenger disembarked, it was possible to get the death penalty or a life sentence for hoax calls.[11]
• This new act applies if the offences are committed outside of India but the aircraft is registered or leased in India, or the offenders are Indian, or the offenders are stateless but live in India, such as an illegal Bangladesh migrant, or the offences are committed against Indians.
• The new Act includes the death penalty as well as a life term for hijacking an airline. Under the former Anti-Hijacking Act, some aeroplanes were deemed in service between the time the doors closed and the time all passengers disembarked.
• The aircraft shall be considered in service under the new Act from the beginning of the pre-flight preparation of the aircraft and by the ground’s personnel.
• A man was sentenced to life in prison and fined Rs 5 crore by an Ahmedabad special court for inventing the hijacking scare, which caused a Jet Airways flight from Mumbai to Delhi to land in Ahmedabad.[12]

OFFENCE AND PENALTIES

Under Section 3(1) of the Anti-hijacking Act,2016, whoever unlawfully and intentionally seizes or attempts to control an aircraft in service by applying force or threat of force, or by coercion or by any other means commits the offence of hijacking, and the act aims to punish not only an actual act of hijacking but also a false threat that appears genuine. It may not be essential to have armed custody of an aeroplane for the hijacking, and it may be hijacked remotely as well by a technological threat. The hijacker attempts to direct others to hijack and enabling another individual to elude investigation are both punished as hijacking, as is hijacking preparation. If the hijacking results in the death of any of the passengers or crew members, the punishment will be death; if the hijacking does not result in the death of any of the passengers, the punishment will be life imprisonment.[13]

In terms of punishment, the statute calls for the death penalty if the offender kills hostage or security personnel, and life imprisonment in all other situations. It also provides for the death penalty for conspirators and abductors involved in any of the hijacking activities, ensuring that all those responsible, directly or indirectly, are held accountable. For the first time, the act allows for the confiscation of a person’s moveable and immovable property if convicted under its provisions.

The Anti-Hijacking Act of 2016 includes provisions for enforcing harsh and effective sanctions as well as ensuring the safety of passengers and crew people. Section 4 of the current Act stipulates the specific punishments for hijacking, including two notable additions: capital sentence and life imprisonment.[14]

MISCELLANEOU PROVIIONS

• Universal Jurisdiction: The Act has jurisdiction in countries other than India. As a result, the act can be employed even if the incident occurred outside of India. The Act is effective whether the plane is registered in India or leased to an Indian firm, as well as when the culprit is an Indian citizen or has no nation but resides in India. The Act addresses offences against Indians.
• Offences of Organising: This part of the Act also addresses individuals who plot or assist others in engaging in hijacking. Anyone who plots or helps hijackers will be considered to be complicit in the hijacking and may be prosecuted.
• Extending the Hijacking Offence: The main goal of the current Act is to make threatening to commit a hijacking a crime, thus extending the definition of the term “hijacking.” This modification was intended to guarantee that any endeavours or proclamations to commandeer an aircraft would be viewed as serious violations. With the help of this policy, the government would have a legitimate way to stop hijackings.
• Central Government’s Powers: In the event that officials connected to the Central Government or the National Investigation Agency (NIA) are suspected of being complicit in hijacking incidents, the legislation grants the Central Government the power to carry out investigations, make arrests, and file lawsuits.
• Bail: Section 12 of the Act covers the provisions for bail and states that offences under this Act are not subject to bail until the public prosecutor has been given the chance to challenge the request for release.[15]

THE ANTI HIJACKING (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010

On August 19, 2010, the Anti-Hijacking (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was presented to the Rajya Sabha by Mr. Praful Patel, the Minister of State in the Ministry of Civil Aviation.  The Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism, and Culture was tasked with reviewing the Bill; it turned in its findings on October 18, 2010. The Bill imposes criminal penalties in relation to aircraft hijacking and changes the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982. According to 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. 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.  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.[16]

THE ANTI- HIJACKING BILL, 2014

On December 17, 2014, Mr. Ashok Gajapathi Raju, the Minister of Civil Aviation, introduced the Anti-Hijacking Bill, 2014 in the Rajya Sabha.  The purpose of the bill is to implement the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and its Protocol Supplementary, which were signed on September 10, 2010, by removing the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982. According to the Bill, hijacking is the illegal and deliberate taking of control of an aircraft while it is in operation, whether using technological methods, physical force, coercion, or any other type of intimidation.  When a crew member or ground staff is preparing an aircraft for a particular flight, it is deemed to be in service, and this continues for 24 hours following any landing. The Bill defines “hijacking” to include a number of acts, such as: (i) attempting and aiding in the act; (ii) posing a credible threat to commit the crime; (iii) planning or directing others to commit the crime; (iv) agreeing to commit the crime with someone else and carrying out that agreement; etc. Penalties for stealing and associated offences The Bill stipulates that: (i) the offender may be executed if the crime results in the death of hostage or security personnel; (ii) in all other situations, the offender may be sentenced to life in prison; and (iii) the accused’s personal belongings may be seized.[17]

INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK

• Agreement on Stopping and Punishing Terrorism – According to this agreement, any actions taken with the intention of causing harm or eliminating properties used for public utility or public properties that are owned by one of the contracting states are deemed terror activities. As a result, damaging actions against aircraft entered the domain of sanction. Ensuring the return of terrorist criminals was a crucial component of the accord. Terrorists would not be permitted to seek refuge in another nation. The impossibility to seek refuge in another nation indicates that this consensus over political events cannot be founded on political grounds.
• Geneva Convention, 1958 – The Geneva Convention Regarding Open Seas, which came into effect on April 29, 1958, contains very little information regarding aeroplane hijacking. The convention states that any and all actions, interceptions, and looting of a ship, an aircraft, its occupants, or their property constitute express piracy acts. It’s crucial to remember that actions without selfish motives do not qualify as acts of piracy. If we consider it a political crime, the Geneva Convention makes no mention of it.
• Tokyo Convention, 1963 – The Tokyo Convention was drafted in 1958 to address the issue and guarantee the hijackers’ punishment. As per the agreement, the state where the aircraft was registered has the authority to handle offences that are committed while the aircraft is in flight.” The Convention has provisions requiring the nation where a hijacked aircraft lands to return it to its rightful owner and permit the passengers and crew to resume their journey, even if it does not declare hijacking an international crime. Adopted on September 14, 1963, the Tokyo Convention went into effect on December 4, 1969.[18]
• Hague Convention, 1970 – The Hague Convention, formally known as the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful of Aircraft, was drafted a year later in December 1970. Although the Tokyo Convention is recognised as the first step in combating unlawful interference with civil aviation, the number of hijacking incidents continued to rise, and the Tokyo Convention was unable to address the issue. As a result, each state was given the authority to prosecute a hijacker and deny them asylum from prosecution if they chose not to extradite them. October 14, 1971 marked the date the Hague Convention entered into force following its ratification by the required number of States. The provisions of this Convention grant the State parties authority over the hijacker and make it extremely difficult for the hijacker to evade legal action.
• Montreal Convention, 1971 – There was no discernible decrease in the number of hijacking occurrences in spite of this convention. From September 8–23, 1971, in Montreal, there was a conference aimed at developing more efficient ways to combat the crime of hijacking. The 23rd of September 1971 saw the signing of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts, Against the Safety of Civil Aviation 1971. The State parties have agreed to implement deterrent penalties for the crime of hijacking under this Convention. Only civil airplanes are covered by it. Customs, law enforcement, and military aircraft are exempt.[19]

OTHER COUNTRIES

Germany      

Germany’s Luftsicherheitsgesetz, a federal law, went into effect in January 2005 and permits “direct action by armed force” against a hijacked aircraft in order to avert an assault as is the case the one that took place on September 11, 2001. Even if such an act might save many more lives on the ground, the Federal Constitutional Court knocked down these elements of the statute in February 2006, ruling that such preventive measures were unlawful and would effectively be state-sponsored murder. This decision was primarily motivated by the realisation that, in order to prevent a terrorist assault, the state would essentially be executing innocent hostages. The Court further decided that the state and federal police forces have the constitutional right to handle terrorism-related cases, and that the Minister of Defence is not entitled to do so. Following the law’s passage in 2005, German President Horst Köhler called for a judicial examination of the Luftsicherheitsgesetz’s validity.[20]    

United States

Countermeasures prior to the September 11 attacks were centred around “traditional” hijackings. Because of this, there were no established guidelines for dealing with suicide hijackings in which an aeroplane was used as a weapon. Furthermore, there was no single command structure at the time and a number of disorganised groups that each had its own set of engagement guidelines made up the military reaction. However, soon after the attacks, new guidelines for combat were established, allowing the Air Force organisation in charge of defending American airspace, North American Aerospace Defence organisation (NORAD), to fire down hijacked commercial aircraft if it is thought to pose a danger to important objectives. According to military reports from 2003, fighter pilots practise this scenario multiple times a week.    

Poland and Russia

Other nations that have laws or orders for shooting down hijacked aircraft include Poland and Russia. But the Polish Constitutional Court declared in September 2008 that the Polish regulations were illegal and nullified them.[21]

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ASPECTS

There is no specific statute against airplane hijacking in Florida. However, Florida contains statutes covering a number of offences related to or occurring in or against aircraft while in flight or on the ground inside the state boundaries, including aviation larceny, three firing at or within aircraft, four causing deaths as a result of tampering with aircraft, and many more. As long as the crimes are committed inside the borders of the state, the full Florida criminal law is essentially applicable. In addition to the particular crime of hijacking, the hijacker exposes himself to punishment for a number of related federal offences that are based on the means by which the illegal act is carried out. Explosive threats have been used by offenders to force pilots to change their flight plans. The “Bomb Hoax” Act is broken by the offender’s statements, regardless of whether he has the ability to carry out his threats.

In some ways, aircraft hijacking is frustrating for those interested in the civil law consequences of this psycho-political event. At first appearance, the area appears to be ideal for civil litigation. One immediately thinks of the businessman who loses a contract or client due to the delay caused by an unplanned and unwanted trip to Cuba. There could be perishable items on board, and the unexpected diversion could mean their demise. Passengers or airline personnel may attempt to apprehend the hijacker, and someone may be hurt or killed. As a result of the incident, mental pain or a mental disorder may be inflicted. [22]

PRESENT SITUATION

The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security was established by the Indian Ministry of Civil Aviation as a security regulatory organisation for the aviation industry following the Kanishka tragedy. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has the authority to handle any aspect of any security concern related to civil aviation. The legislature passed a law known as the Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982, but its provisions are not very broad, and its execution falls short of expectations. The Indian government has taken a number of significant actions to avoid hijacking, strengthened airport security, and is attempting to abide by the international norms and global aspects outlined in numerous international conventions pertaining to aircraft hijacking. As the aviation industry is currently the biggest threat, developing nations like India must prioritise proper governance and legislative enactment. To lessen this issue, relevant statutory provisions and strong, disciplined executing authorities must be established. Not only is hijacking a significant issue overall, but it also infringes upon people’s human rights. The implementation of hijacking schemes severely violates the human rights granted by international summits and the United Nations charter. Human rights protection is a highly significant topic in India, where the government has to take action to uphold the laws protecting these rights regardless of the situation or the state of society at the time. The Indian economy grows slowly as a result of terrorism’s regular disruptions and hijacking; the government is unable to focus on development as a result of these actions. This could be the terrorist organisations’ real strategy to put pressure on the Indian government and cause it to impede the nation’s progress.[23]

HOW TO PREVENT HIJACKING

• Make use of multifactor authentication and secure passwords. These methods stop hackers from accessing accounts even if they are able to obtain a user’s session ID.
• Share session IDs only with reliable parties. Sharing links or submitting queries to websites should be done with caution as these actions may contain session IDs.
• Apply a VPN By preventing traffic from being intercepted, a VPN makes it more difficult for attackers to steal session IDs.[24]
• Update your software. To stop hackers from taking advantage of security flaws in software and operating systems to access user sessions, make sure these are kept up to date with the most recent security patches.
• Attend cybersecurity education. Because cybersecurity threats are ever-changing, it’s critical to stay up to date on the newest attack methods and their prevention. Think about obtaining certifications in penetration testing, incident response, ethical hacking, and other cybersecurity-related fields.

CASE LAWS

1. Indian Airline Flight IC-814 (1999)

     An Indian Airlines flight (814) also known as IC 814 was hijacked by five Pakistani hijackers on December 24, 1999, while it was travelling from Kathmandu, Nepal to Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi. The hijackers took the plane to Kandahar, Afghanistan, which was then under the control of the Taliban, who were working with ISI. At that point, the Taliban surrounded the aircraft to stop any Indian military action. The aircraft was flown to several sites, including Amritsar, Lahore, and Dubai, prior to arriving in Afghanistan. With active backing and direction from ISI, the Islamic extremist group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, located in Pakistan, organised and carried out the hijacking. After striking a deal with the Indian government, the hijackers in Dubai freed 27 out of 176 passengers, but not before fatally stabbing one and seriously wounding multiple others. It seems that the primary goal of the hijacking was to obtain the release of Islamists who had been imprisoned in India. Following a week-long siege, India consented to trade the captives for the release of three militants: Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, Masood Azhar, and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar. Since then, these three militants have been accused of other terrorist acts, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks and the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl in 2002. The UN Security Council designated Masood Azhar as an International Terrorist on May 1, 2019. Ahmed Sheikh is incarcerated in the United Kingdom for life, while Masood Azhar and Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar reside in Pakistan. The hijacking has been identified as one of the plots of al-Qaeda terrorists for the millennium attack that took place in late December 1999 and early January 2000.[25]

• Birju Salla VS State of Gujarat

            Birju Salla, a businessman from Mumbai who was found guilty of threatening to hijack a Mumbai-Delhi Jet Airways flight on October 30, 2017, was given a life sentence. He is currently awaiting a verdict on his appeal, which he filed at the Gujarat High Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling. Earlier in the month, a bench consisting of Justices J B Pardiwala and V D Nanavati heard Salla’s appeal. However, because Justice Pardiwala was appointed to the Supreme Court on May 5, the hearing will be held again. On May 6, the bench had issued an order for additional consideration of the case. Salla had requested an early hearing on the matter before the Supreme Court. On May 28, 2021, the Supreme Court released Salla from prison by delaying his sentence and allowing him to petition the Gujarat High Court for an early hearing on his appeal proceedings. The case was then taken up by the bench. Salla, a forty-year-old businessman, was detained after he made threats to take over a Jet Airways flight that was headed for Delhi. On January 22, 2018, the National inquiry Agency (NIA), which had taken over the inquiry, submitted a charge sheet against him. In November 2019, a special NIA court found him guilty of life improvement, marking the first conviction under the recently passed anti-hijacking law. Salla requested an early hearing in order to suspend his punishment and filed an appeal with the Gujarat High Court. On October 9, 2019, the HC, however, rejected his request and ordered the lower court to compile a paper record of the case. After that, his case was repeatedly unable to be heard. He subsequently entered a plea in opposition to the HC order at the supreme court.[26]

Forging Case Laws

• ATLAS Jet Airline Flight Hijacking

     As it was travelling from Northern Cyprus to Istanbul, an Atlas plane was taken over. It was carrying 136 passengers and 6 crew members when it took off from the Northern Cyprus airfield. Claiming to be members of al-Qaeda, two tall, dark-skinned guys pushed their way into the cockpit of the aircraft and demanded that it be flown to Iran or Syria because they had a bomb. But the pilots used the emergency landing at Antalya, a city in southern Turkey, as a pretext to refuel the aircraft. The passengers said the hijackers were Turkish, but one of the pilots said they were Iranian. Police quickly surrounded the plane as it landed in Antalya. In response, the hijackers threatened to blow up the aircraft. However, the ladies and children were persuaded to disembark from the aircraft by the airport authorities. As this was going on, other passengers hurried through the doors and the two pilots climbed out of the plane, creating a chaotic scenario that forced the hijackers to surrender.

• LOKERDIE Case (PAN AM Flight 103)

     On December 21, 1988, a bomb exploded in the cargo hold of Pan Am Flight 103 (London-New York), killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as eleven civilians of Lockerbie, where the Boeing 747 wreckage plummeted 31,000 feet below. After years of talks and political manoeuvring, Libya handed over the two Libyan officials accused of the attack for trial in the Netherlands before a panel of Scottish judges at Camp Zeist, a former US military station. The trial started on May 3, 2000. The United States and the United Kingdom, however, rejected the offer on the grounds that Malta was so close to Libya that its judiciary would be vulnerable to undue influence. As an alternative, Libya recommended in 1994 that the trial be held in a neutral nation, such as the Netherlands, before a Scottish court. The United States and the United Kingdom first rejected the offer, considering it to be a ruse. However, it became increasingly evident over the next few years that, despite penalties, the two Libyans would not be handed over for trial. Meanwhile, a rising number of countries expressed their resistance to the sanctions, and their enforcement began to deteriorate. Finally, in August 1998, Tony Blair’s British government persuaded the US to accept Libya’s offer.[27]

CONCLUSION

The 1982 Act is broader than the 2016 Act. With hefty penalties, fines, and property confiscation, notorious individuals will desist from endangering the aviation industry. There haven’t been any major hijackings in recent memory, and that trend may continue. Even if the current provision is broad, it still has to be improved. Such amendments could be made as a result of court interpretations or revisions. The Anti-hijacking Amendment Act of 2016 includes a significant number of improvements over the 1982 act and the 1994 modifications. With the introduction of this act, Indian legislation surely reinforces its stance against hijacking situations because it brings both technology and man to work more closely for the protection of passengers. The new act has also been framed by the Beijing convention, 2010, which makes it notable globally as various countries use this convention to define their civil aviation laws. Previously, the term was restricted to the phrase “in flight.” The scope and area of the Anti-Hijacking Act have been expanded following revision, and it now encompasses total activities in relation to a complete flight plan. The bill altered the current scenario for the trial of cases involving hijacking offences by introducing rapid trial procedures that can be carried out on a daily basis in the state’s sessions court with the authorization of the Chief Justice of the High Court of that state. Section 5A has been added, which states that, in addition to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the central government shall have the power to appoint central officers for investigation in relation to any hijacking activity, and those officers shall also have the power to arrest any suspect. Section 7A states that no one detained under this act may be freed on bond.

REFERENCE

• Tutorials point, Anti hijacking act, (02 Nov., 2023), https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview
• Legge Rhythms, an overview of anti-hijacking act, (02 Nov. 2023), https://leggerhythms.org/an-overview-on-anti-hijacking-act/
• Lawyerslaw.org, the anti-hijacking act, 1982 (02 Nov. 2023), https://lawyerslaw.org/the-anti-hijacking-act-1982/
• Aishwarya Sandeep, the anti-hijacking act, 2016, (02 Nov., 2023), https://aishwaryasandeep.in/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-background-objectives-salient-features/
• Bare act, the anti-hijacking act, 2016.
• Judicateme, an overview of the anti-hijacking act (02 Nov., 2023), https://judicateme.com/an-overview-of-the-anti-hijacking-act/
• The WIRE, the anti-hijacking act (02 Nov. 2023), https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer
• Get legal India, the anti-hijacking bill 2016, (02 Nov. 2023), https://getlegalindia.com/anti-hijacking-bill/#Punishment_for_Offence
• PSR, the anti-hijacking (amendment) bill, 2010, (03 Nov. 2023), https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-amendment-bill-2010
• PSR, the anti-hijacking bill, 2014 (03 Nov. 2023), https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-bill-2014
• Social law today, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://sociallawstoday.com/aircraft-hijacking-meaning-history-causes law/#INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_TO_COMBAT_AVIATION_CRIME
• Wikipedia, aircraft hijacking, (03Nov. 2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#Germany
• Florida law review, aircraft hijacking civil and criminal aspects, (03 Nov. 2023), https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=flr
• INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, LEGAL REGULATION OF AERIAL HIJACKING, (03 NOV. 2023), http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1485838122_N536_IJSTM.pdf
• Cyber security, what is hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://www.eccouncil.org/cybersecurity-exchange/ethical-hacking/how-to-prevent-session-hijacking-attacks/
• Ahmedabad mirror, Supreme court case, (03 Nov. 2023), https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/judges-change-birju-salla-case-will-go-to-new-bench/81833252.html

---

[1]Tutorials point, Anti hijacking act, (02 Nov., 2023), https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview

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

[3]Tutorials point, Anti hijacking act, (02 Nov., 2023), https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview

[4] Lawyerslaw.org, the anti-hijacking act, 1982 (02 Nov. 2023), https://lawyerslaw.org/the-anti-hijacking-act-1982/

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

[6]Tutorials point, Anti hijacking act, (02 Nov., 2023), https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview

[7] Tutorials point, Anti hijacking act, (02 Nov., 2023), https://www.tutorialspoint.com/anti-hijacking-act-an-overview

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

[9] Bare act, the anti-hijacking act, 2016.

[10] Bare act, the anti-hijacking act, 2016.

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

[12] Judicateme, an overview of the anti-hijacking act (02 Nov., 2023), https://judicateme.com/an-overview-of-the-anti-hijacking-act/

[13] The WIRE, the anti-hijacking act (02 Nov. 2023), https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer

[14] The WIRE, the anti-hijacking act (02 Nov. 2023), https://thewire.in/law/the-anti-hijacking-act-2016-an-explainer

[15] Get legal India, the anti-hijacking bill 2016, (02 Nov. 2023), https://getlegalindia.com/anti-hijacking-bill/#Punishment_for_Offence

[16] PSR, the anti-hijacking (amendment) bill, 2010, (03 Nov. 2023), https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-amendment-bill-2010

[17] PSR, the anti-hijacking bill, 2014 (03 Nov. 2023), https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-anti-hijacking-bill-2014

[18] Social law today, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://sociallawstoday.com/aircraft-hijacking-meaning-history-causes-law/#INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_TO_COMBAT_AVIATION_CRIMES

[19] Social law today, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://sociallawstoday.com/aircraft-hijacking-meaning-history-causes-law/#INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_TO_COMBAT_AVIATION_CRIMES

[20] Wikipedia, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#Germany

[21] Wikipedia, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking#Germany

[22] Florida law review, aircraft hijacking civil and criminal aspects, (03 Nov. 2023), https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2686&context=flr

[23] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, LEGAL REGULATION OF AERIAL HIJACKING, (03 NOV. 2023), http://www.ijstm.com/images/short_pdf/1485838122_N536_IJSTM.pdf

[24] Cyber security, what is hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://www.eccouncil.org/cybersecurity-exchange/ethical-hacking/how-to-prevent-session-hijacking-attacks/

[25] Social law today, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://sociallawstoday.com/aircraft-hijacking-meaning-history-causes-law/#INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_TO_COMBAT_AVIATION_CRIMES

[26] Ahmedabad mirror, Supreme court case, (03 Nov. 2023), https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/judges-change-birju-salla-case-will-go-to-new-bench/81833252.html

[27] Social law today, aircraft hijacking, (03 Nov. 2023), https://sociallawstoday.com/aircraft-hijacking-meaning-history-causes-law/#INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_TO_COMBAT_AVIATION_CRIMES

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.