Rahulan v. Attorneygeneral – sllr 2006 volume 3 page 253

In the case between Rahul (accused-appellant/member of LTTE) and the Attorney General, the court addressed the application and interpretation of section 2(1)(h) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) regarding whether the act of undergoing weapons training is encompassed within the statute’s phrase “words… or otherwise.” The holding confirmed that such conduct does fall within the provision, with the reasoning founded on a purposive, expansive interpretation aligned with the legislative intent to counter terrorism broadly. The judgment reaffirmed that the ejusdem generis rule should not restrict the statutory language unduly when public safety objectives are implicated. It was further determined that a voluntary and sufficiently detailed confession, even in the absence of corroborating e