The bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma emphasised that phrases like “with intent to strike terror” and “by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause” in the UAPA definition reflect the statute’s preventive intent.
Related Posts
Haryana Plumber Wins Rs 1.5 Crore Lottery After Years Of Hard Luck, His First Stop Is…
The 40-year-old plumber, who has been working hard to make ends meet, received a life-changing phone call at 9 pm on Tuesday evening.
‘Mass Deportations, Pardon For Jan. 6 Rioters’: What To Expect From Trump On First Day In Office?
US President-elect Donald Trump’s Day 1 agenda includes mass deportations, reversing Biden-era immigration policies, lifting regulations, pardoning January 6 rioters, and tackling inflation through oil […]
Meet Bryan Johnson, The Man Who Spends $2 Million A Year To Look 18 By Swapping Blood With Dad, Son
Millionaire Bryan Johnson is the infamous tech entrepreneur renowned for his anti-ageing obsession. For years, he has been tirelessly working on various anti-ageing regimens. His […]