Should Mumbai Get Tougher On Hoax Callers?

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.

High-Profile Threats Escalate Concerns

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.”

Several cases drew sharp criticism, especially those involving schools where children were evacuated during heavy rains and left waiting outside in fear.

Legal Framework and Limitations

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.

Calls for Summary Trials and Reverse Burden

Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, representing the Maharashtra government before the Supreme Court, said: “There should be a summary trial with minimal evidence. Due to delays, the gravity of such offences diminishes.” A summary trial is a legal proceeding designed to expedite the trial process for certain types of offenses. It is characterised by a simplified procedure, allowing cases to be resolved quickly. 

Thakare further suggested placing a reverse burden of proof on the accused. “In such cases, the accused should be presumed guilty and must prove their innocence,” he said.

Nangre concurred, noting that Section 9A of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts presumes guilt unless proven otherwise. “A similar clause should be introduced in the BNS,” he added, emphasising that bail provisions too must mirror the stricter standards under MCOCA and UAPA.

Parents affected by such incidents have also voiced anger. One parent, whose 10-year-old daughter had to wait outside her school in pouring rain during a bomb scare, said: “Imagine what the children and parents went through. The anxiety until the police cleared the building was unbearable. Such culprits should not be let off easily.”

As hoax threats continue to divert police resources and spread fear, legal experts and citizens alike are demanding stronger deterrents. Whether through tighter laws or swifter trials, the message is clear fake bomb threats are no longer a joke.

Record of Recent Threats

May – Mumbai Police received an email threatening to blow up the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport in the city and Hotel Taj Mahal Palace. 

June 16 – International schools in Kandivali East, Mankhurd, Mira Road and Bhayander received threatening bomb blasts. 

June 26 – Rahul International School in Nalasopara West received a bomb threat mail in the early hours stating that detonators had been planted in the school premises and that they would explode at 2 pm.

July 18 – Swami Vivekanand International School in Kandivali West received bomb threats, hours after similar warning emails were sent to a plethora of educational institutions in Delhi and Bengaluru. 

July – A threat call warned of an attack at Terminal 2 of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport. 

August – The ISKCON temple in Girgaon received a threat email. 

September 4 – A message received on the helpline number of the Mumbai Traffic Police on Thursday threatening to blow up Mumbai. 

September 5 – Mumbai traffic police helpline received a chilling threat call claiming that 34 “human bombs” carrying 400 kg of RDX had been planted in vehicles across Mumbai to trigger explosions that would “shake the entire city”. The call was traced to an organisation identifying itself as “Lashkar-e-Jihadi”. 

September 7 – The Nair Hospital in Mumbai Central received a bomb threat via e-mail.

September 13 – The Bombay High Court received an email claiming that a blast would occur inside the court premises, triggering panic just hours after a similar threat was reported in Delhi. 

September 29 – Shivaji Park police station received a bomb threat, claiming a bomb had been planted at Dadar railway station.

Early September – Police arrested a 43-year-old man from Thane for allegedly making a fake bomb threat about blowing up Kalwa railway station. 

Delhi HC Directs Schools and Authorities to Implement Interim Safety Measures and SOPs for Bomb Threats

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.