Explained | MHA Adds 23 Pakistan-Based Individuals to Terror List: What Does 'Designated Terrorist' Mean Under UAPA?

By Mahima Katal

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs on Saturday designated 23 Pakistan-based individuals linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and other terrorist organisations as "designated terrorists" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). With this notification, the total number of individuals listed under the Act has increased to 80.

While the announcement is significant from a national security perspective, it also raises an important legal question: What changes once a person is declared a designated terrorist under Indian law?

The answer lies in the provisions of the UAPA, particularly after a major amendment made in 2019.

The designation is a legal declaration—not a criminal conviction

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding such notifications is that a person declared a terrorist has been convicted by a court. Legally, that is not the case.

A designation under Section 35 of the UAPA is an executive decision taken by the Central Government if it believes an individual is involved in terrorism. A criminal conviction, on the other hand, can only follow a trial before a competent court where evidence is tested and guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

The designation, therefore, is a preventive legal measure intended to identify individuals alleged to be involved in terrorist activities even before a criminal case reaches its conclusion.

Why the 2019 amendment changed India's counterterror law

Before 2019, the UAPA empowered the government to notify only organisations as terrorist organisations. Groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba could be banned, but their leaders or operatives had to be prosecuted separately through criminal proceedings.

The 2019 amendment fundamentally changed this framework by allowing the Centre to designate individuals as terrorists. The government argued that terror outfits frequently changed names, splintered into smaller groups or operated through informal networks, allowing key operatives to escape the impact of organisational bans.

The amendment sought to close that gap by targeting the individuals allegedly responsible for planning, financing, recruiting or directing terrorist activities.

What does Saturday's notification legally empower the government to do?

The notification itself does not authorise immediate arrests simply because an individual's name has been added to the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA. However, it significantly strengthens the legal framework available to investigative agencies.

The designation enables authorities to pursue financial investigations more effectively, identify and attach assets linked to terrorist activities where permitted by law, disrupt funding channels and strengthen cooperation with foreign governments in counterterrorism investigations.

In the present case, many of the 23 individuals are believed to be operating from Pakistan. Although India may not have physical custody over them, the designation creates an official legal basis for pursuing financial trails, intelligence-sharing and future enforcement measures wherever jurisdiction permits.

Can a designated terrorist challenge the government's decision?

The law also provides a review mechanism.

A person whose name has been included in the Fourth Schedule may apply to the Central Government seeking removal from the list. If the request is rejected, the matter can be examined by a Review Committee headed by a sitting or retired judge, which considers whether sufficient grounds exist to continue the designation.

This review process was incorporated as an important procedural safeguard, particularly because designation takes place through executive action rather than judicial determination.

Why this notification matters beyond the latest announcement

The addition of 23 Pakistan-based individuals reflects India's evolving counterterrorism strategy, which increasingly combines criminal law, financial enforcement and diplomatic engagement.

Rather than relying solely on banning organisations, the government is focusing on individuals allegedly responsible for planning, financing and facilitating terrorist activities. Such designations also strengthen India's position in international forums by formally identifying individuals whom it accuses of involvement in cross-border terrorism.

However, legal experts also note that because designation precedes a criminal conviction, its use continues to raise questions about balancing national security with procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards.

As India expands its use of the UAPA against individuals, the law is likely to remain at the centre of debates on counterterrorism, executive power and civil liberties.