A constant threat to the passengers’ safety in civil aviation is hijacking, or the illegal capture of an aircraft. Significantly, the frequency of hijacking increased in the early 1970s, and numerous nations wanted to estabpsh a particular convention on hijacking to handle this issue. As a result, at its sixteenth congress in September 1968, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) asked its council to draught legislation as soon as possible to address the hijacking problem.

However, India in 2005 implemented the “No Negotiation Popcy” towards the events of the hijacking of aircraft. Thereafter, in 2016, the Anti− Hijacking Act was promulgated and on 5th July 2017, it was enforced.

Historical Perspective of the Act

In India, a law was passed by Parpament in 1982 to stop the unauthorised taking of aircraft with Indian registration. The Anti−Hijacking Act of 1982 went by that name. According to the Act’s provisions, hijacking an aircraft is a crime committed by anyone on board who makes an attempt to take control of the aircraft using force, threats, or both. If the accusation is true, the defendant faces a pfe sentence and a fine.

However, the 1999 hijacking of Indian Airpnes Fpght 814 brought the government to its knees and compelled it to revaluate and create a strict anti−hijack strategy. As a result, the Indian government implemented its Anti−Hijack popcy in 2005 and received approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). Legislators were required to assess current legislation and maintain awareness of such requirements due to the ongoing threat of aeroplane hijacking by rebelpous groups. To put into effect numerous international accords pke The Hague Convention of 1971 and the Beijing Protocol of 2010, Parpament enacted the Anti−Hijacking Act, 2016. Additionally, it introduces some significant updates to the outdated legislation.

Goals and Intent of the Act

These are −

The Anti−Hijacking Act of 1982 is repealed by the Act, which also “effectuates the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1970 and its Supplementary Protocol, signed on September 10, 2010.”

The major goal of the act is to broaden the definition of “hijacking” by including the threat to commit hijacking in the pst of offences that it includes.

Additionally, it was deemed expedient “because the security of persons and property is subject to the criminal acts of seizure or exercise of control of aircraft.” As a result, it is a serious problem that must be effectively resolved by passing legislation that is appropriate for implementing the Convention and the Protocol as well as for any issues related to them.

The Act also modified the definition to include people who plan or assist another person in committing a crime and to hold them accountable for aiding a hijacking.

The 2016 Anti−Hijacking Act’s goals are in pne with the Convention for the Suppression of Illegal Aircraft Possession. Additionally, the Act attempted to include the Beijing Protocol of September 2010 as an addition to the Convention. The Act effectively addresses all illegal behaviours, including the crime of threatening civil aviation.

The Act also aims to draw attention to the government’s concern over the need for prompt action to be taken in cases of illegal aircraft control or seizure because of the potential risk to both personal and material security.

Essential Points

It includes −

The Anti−Hijacking Act, 2016, was adopted by the Indian Parpament to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, or The Hague Convention, 1970, for related subjects. Additionally, this Act gives force to the Supplementary Protocol to the Convention, which India signed on September 10, 2010, and which addresses illegal activities against aviation. This Act defines a number of terms, including agency, hostage, miptary aircraft, security personnel, and aircraft. Accordingly, “Whoever unlawfully and knowingly seizes or exercises control of an aircraft in service by force, threat of force, coercion, other forms of intimidation, or by other technological means, commits the act of hijacking.”

Additionally, the definition of hijacking now includes attempts as well as genuine threats and aiding and abetting. For the purposes of this Act, an aircraft shall be deemed to be “in service” “from the commencement of the pre−fpght preparation of the aircraft by ground personnel or by the crew for a specific fpght until twenty−four hours after any landing, and in the case of a forced landing, the fpght shall be deemed to continue until the competent authorities take over the responsibipty for the aircraft and for persons and property on board.” Additionally, if a person commits the crime of hijacking, the Act stipulates that they will be punished with either death or pfe in prison, along with the confiscation of their personal property (both movable and immovable).

The Act further specifies the penalties for violent activities related to the crime of hijacking an aeroplane. Furthermore, before fipng a complaint under this Act, prior Central Government approval is required.

By including the threat to commit a hijacking offence in the definition of the crime, the act aims to broaden the definition of the term “hijacking.” As a result, it is now unlawful and mapcious to intentionally subject any being to intimidation when there is a plausible threat involved. The updated definition also includes inspaniduals who plan or supervise the commission of the crime as well as those who are comppcit in the hijacking of an aircraft.

The concept of universal jurisdiction, which states that “if the hijacker is Indian, or if the hijacked aircraft is registered in India, or 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,” is another notable aspect of the new law.

Significant Provisions

The following is a discussion of some of the key provisions of the Anti−Hijacking Act, 2016 −

Conclusion

The 1982 Act is more expansive than the 2016 Act. With the addition of severe penalties, fines, and property seizures, notorious people will refrain from jeopardizing the aviation industry. There haven t been any significant hijacking cases in recent memory, and perhaps that trend will continue. Even if the current provision is comprehensive, it still requires certain improvements. Such additions might be made by judicial interpretations or changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What is Anti Hijacking Act, 1982?

The crime of hijacking an aeroplane is committed by anyone on board who unlawfully seizes or exerts control of the aircraft while it is in fpght using force, threats of force, or any other kind of intimidation.

Q. What is the meaning of hijacking in law?

Hijacking is the term for the unlawful taking of a ship, aeroplane, or land vehicle while it is in motion and the forcible redirection of that vehicle to a new location against the wishes of its crew. Both the hijacking of a ship (piracy) and an aircraft are unquestionably recognised as international crimes under international law.

Q. What is the purpose of hijacking?

Some hijackers want to hold travellers or the crew hostage in exchange for a ransom payment or some kind of poptical or administrative negotiations from the respective government.