Centre Declares 'Shahzad Bhatti Network' As Terrorist Outfit Under UAPA - News18

**Centre Declares ‘Shahzad Bhatti Network’ a Terrorist Outfit Under UAPA**

New Delhi – The Union Home Ministry announced on Tuesday that the Pakistan‑based “Shahzad Bhatti Network” has been formally designated as a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The decision, conveyed through an official circular, cites the network’s alleged involvement in financing, planning and executing violent activities against Indian interests both domestically and abroad. The ministry’s statement underscores that the network operates through a chain of operatives spread across several Indian states, leveraging trans‑national links to procure arms and explosives.

The designation follows a series of intelligence inputs that connected the network to high‑profile incidents, including the 2022 murder of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala, the ongoing rivalry‑driven clashes involving gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, and a “hybrid terrorism” plot that blended organized crime with extremist motives. The security agencies also warned that the network was referenced in a BRICS summit threat advisory, prompting heightened vigilance in Delhi and bordering regions. In anticipation of potential reprisals, police in Odisha, Delhi and other vulnerable zones have intensified patrols, deployed bomb‑detection squads, and issued public alerts about possible grenade attacks.

Political leaders and civil‑society groups have responded with mixed reactions. While the ruling coalition hailed the move as a decisive step to curb cross‑border terror financing, opposition parties urged the government to provide transparent evidence to avoid any misuse of the stringent UAPA provisions. Legal experts note that the designation will enable the authorities to freeze assets, arrest alleged members without prior bail, and pursue prosecution under the anti‑terror law. The network’s legal counsel has signaled an intention to challenge the ban in the Supreme Court, arguing that the move could infringe on due‑process rights.