With a surge in such cases, where police receive emails or calls about bomb blasts, there is growing demand for harsher penalties. Every threat, even if false, triggers widespread panic and a massive mobilisation of police resources. In recent months, Mumbai has witnessed several instances of bomb threats targeting schools, hospitals, airports, temples, the Bombay High Court, and other public places. While most turn out to be hoaxes, the larger question remains: Should those responsible be let off lightly, or face stringent punishment to deter others?
With a surge in such cases, where police receive emails or calls about bomb blasts, there is growing demand for harsher penalties. Every threat, even if false, triggers widespread panic and a massive mobilisation of police resources. Entire premises are evacuated, and the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BDDS) conducts thorough checks, affecting hundreds of lives.
The debate gained urgency when Mumbai received multiple threats just before the Ganesh festival, when the city’s streets are packed with devotees. The most alarming came on September 5, when the traffic police helpline received a call claiming that 34 “human bombs” carrying 400 kg of RDX had been planted across Mumbai to “shake the entire city.” Most such offences are booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), unless links to terrorist organisations or organised crime are found — in which case the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or National Security Act (NSA) are invoked.
Recent FIRs have invoked Sections 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS. Section 351(2) deals with criminal intimidation through electronic means social media, emails, or phone calls carrying up to two years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. Section 351(3) covers threats to cause death, grievous hurt, or destruction of property, punishable with up to seven years in prison. Senior Advocate Sayaji Nangre said punishments under these sections are not stringent enough for individuals issuing fake bomb threats at public or private places, except airports. He suggested that the BNS should incorporate provisions similar to the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, which prescribes life imprisonment for bomb threats targeting airports.
“Section 3(d) of that Act should be expanded to cover public and private places,” Nangre said, adding that existing laws already deal effectively with terrorist organisations. He also pointed out that Rule 30(A) of the Airport Security Rules, 2023, amended in 2024, imposes only a Rs1 lakh fine on offenders — a penalty he termed “insufficient.” Legal experts have also called for making such offences non-bailable and ensuring speedy trials.
On November 14, 2024, the Delhi High Court directed authorities to frame and implement interim measures to tackle bomb threats and similar emergencies in schools until comprehensive SOPs or laws are in place. The court observed that while agencies must trace and punish offenders, expecting a foolproof prevention mechanism is unrealistic. It emphasized that state and police “must focus on deterrence” by ensuring that such acts are met with strict consequences, thereby maintaining public confidence.
The State was directed to develop a detailed action plan, including a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) outlining the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement, school management, and municipal authorities for coordinated response. The court further ordered regular training sessions for teachers, staff, students, and other stakeholders to ensure preparedness and effective implementation of safety protocols in handling bomb threats and related emergencies.
Source : https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/fake-bomb-threats-on-the-rise-should-mumbai-get-tougher-on-hoax-callers