Published Paper Details:

Section 113 of India's new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) embeds the definition of "terrorist act" directly into the ordinary criminal code, shifting it from special laws like the UAPA. This integration normalizes terrorism charges, making them appear routine alongside common crimes. Critics argue this perilous embedding carries severe risks: the overbroad definition (including acts threatening security, unity, or causing disruption "by any means") and harsh penalties enable potential misuse against dissent, protests, minorities, and journalists. It blurs crucial distinctions between ordinary crime and national security threats, erodes due process, creates a chilling effect on fundamental freedoms, and risks mainstreaming controversial anti-terror frameworks. This article mainly critically analyses the newly inserted provision. The Paper briefly analyses the historical development of counter terrorism laws in India from TADA to POTA to the current primary counter terrorism statute, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).Further the possible perils of normalization of terrorism law under section 113 BNS is also analyzed. Furthermore a comparative analysis of the Indian law with the international legal standard is also discussed briefly. And lastly the actions in order to mitigate the profound perils posed by section 113 are also discussed as suggestions.