Personal enmity not terrorism, says SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Wednesday issued a 59-page judgment on the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 decreeing the term ‘terrorism’ ‘too wide’ and recommended Parliament to consider substituting the present definition of terrorism with a more succinct definition, bringing it in line with the international perspective of that offence and focusing on violent activities aimed at achieving political, ideological or religious objectives.Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Asif Saeed Khosa authored the judgment. The judgment observed that the matter had been a subject of controversy for some time and that different benches of varying strength deciding different cases had [...] understood and interpreted the said term differently."It is in this backdrop that the present larger bench has been constituted so as to put an end to that controversy," read the judgment. According to the judgment, the term 'terrorism' could be applied to the use of force, under an organised plan, for realisation of religious, ideological or political goals.It can also be applied when, under the plan, terror is struck in the hearts of people and damage dealt to lives and property. The offence of terrorism is also committed when under an organised plan, religious sectarianism is spread in society.Attacking journalists, the business community, the public, and the social sector under an organised plan also falls within the definition of terrorism. Similarly, an attack on law enforcement agencies and security forces is also terrorism, according to the judgment.Employing an organised plan to cause damage to government property and to commit theft and robbery under such a plan are also acts of terrorism. The judgment also outlined what offences could not be viewed as terrorism.According to the judgment, acts of violence such as setting things on fire, extortion committed under a personal vendetta arising out of enmity or hostility and personal enmity as a result of contempt for a person’s religion were not terrorism.A person’s involvement in an act of violence owing to hostility or personal enmity against the police, army or government employees does not fall within the scope of terrorism, ruled the court.“Any action constituting an offence, howsoever grave, shocking, brutal, gruesome or horrifying, does not qualify to be termed terrorism if it is not committed with the design or purpose specified or mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the said Act”.“It is further clarified that the actions specified in subsection (2) of section 6 of that Act do not qualify to be labeled or characterised as terrorism if such actions are taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta,” said the court in its judgment.The judgment observed that the definition of terrorism at present, as defined in the Act, was ‘too wide’ and the same included so many actions, designs and purposes having no nexus with the generally recognised concept of what terrorism was.“Apart from that including some other heinous offences in the Preamble and the Third Schedule to that Act for trial of such offences by an Anti Terrorism Court when such other offences do not qualify to be included in the definition of terrorism puts an extra and unnecessary burden on such courts and causes delay in trial of actual cases of terrorism,” said the judgment.The apex court recommended that the Parliament consider substituting the current definition with “a more succinct” one bringing it “in line with the international perspectives of that offence and focusing on violent activities aimed at achieving political, ideological or religious objectives”.“We further recommend that Parliament may also consider suitably amending the preamble to the Act and removing all those offences from the Third Schedule to the Act which offences have no nexus with the offence of terrorism,” said the judgment.

from The News International - Top Story https://ift.tt/2BZOYnL