#SupremeCourt observed that the "Terrorist Act" may not confined to the use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone. It encompasses acts which disrupt supplies or services essential to the life of the community, as well as acts which threaten the economic security of the nation. https://x.com/CiteCase/status/2008143492082720864
"87. The means by which such acts may be committed are not confined to the
use of bombs, explosives, firearms, or other conventional weapons alone.
Parliament has consciously employed the expression “by any other means of
whatever nature”, which expression cannot be rendered otiose. The statutory
emphasis is thus not solely on the instrumentality employed, but on the design,
intent, and effect of the act. To construe Section 15 as limited only to conventional
modes of violence would be to unduly narrow the provision, contrary to its plain
language.
88. The consequences contemplated under Section 15 further illuminate the
legislative understanding of terrorism. Apart from death or destruction of
property, the provision expressly encompasses acts which disrupt supplies or
services essential to the life of the community, as well as acts which threaten the
economic security of the nation. This reflects Parliament’s recognition that threats
to sovereignty and security may arise through conduct that destabilises civic life.."
What is the meaning of conduct that destabilizes civic life?"
More often it is the state that is guilty of this or so it seems to my limited understanding