‘Terrorism’ too widely defined in Anti Terrorism Act, says SC; recommends Parliament bring changes

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Wednesday that reviews the meaning and scope of the term "terrorism" as defined in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 and recommended that Parliament present changes in the current understanding of the term, which is "too broad" .

The 59-page sentence was drafted by the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Asif Saeed Khosa.

In its ruling, the court noted that the matter had been "a matter of controversy" for some time and that "different honorable banks of different strength deciding different cases have […] understood and interpreted that term differently. "

"It is in this context that the current largest bank has been set up to end that controversy," the ruling said.

According to the sentence, the term "terrorism" can be applied to the use of force, under an organized plan, for the realization of religious, ideological or political objectives.

It can also be applied when, according to the plan, there is terror in people's hearts and damage to lives and property.

The crime of terrorism is also committed when, under an organized plan, religious sectarianism extends into society.

Attacking journalists, the business community, the public and the social sector under an organized plan also falls within the definition of terrorism. Similarly, an attack against law enforcement agencies and security forces is also terrorism, according to the ruling.

Employing an organized plan to cause damage to government property and committing robbery and theft under that plan are also acts of terrorism.

The ruling also described what crimes cannot be considered terrorism.

The court clearly distinguished in its judgment that acts of violence, such as setting fire and extortion, committed under personal revenge that arises from enmity or hostility are not "terrorism."

Personal enmity as a result of contempt for a person's religion is not terrorism.

The participation of a person in an act of violence due to hostility or personal enmity against the police, the army or government employees does not fall within the scope of terrorism, the court ruled.

The Supreme Court clarified that "any action that constitutes a crime, for serious, shocking, brutal, frightening or horrendous, does not qualify as 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 said Law ".

"It is further clarified that the actions specified in subsection (2) of section 6 of that Act do not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism if such actions are taken to promote personal enmity or private revenge," the court said in its trial .

He also noted that the definition of terrorism today, as defined in the Law, is "too broad and it includes so many actions, designs and purposes that have no connection to the generally recognized concept of terrorism."

"Apart from that, which includes other heinous crimes in the Preamble and the Third Annex of that Law for the trial of such crimes by an Anti-Terrorist Court when such other crimes do not qualify to be included in the definition of terrorism poses an additional and unnecessary burden on such courts and causes delays in the trial of real cases of terrorism, "said the court ruling.

The court recommended that Parliament consider replacing the current definition with "a more succinct one" that puts it "in line with the international perspectives of that crime and focuses on violent activities aimed at achieving political, ideological or religious objectives."

"We further recommend that Parliament also consider properly amending the preamble of the Law and eliminate all those crimes from the Third List of the Law whose crimes are not linked to the crime of terrorism," said the ruling.