Legislature should redefine terrorism, suggests SC.

ISLAMABAD -- The Supreme Court held on Wednesday that the definition of 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 was too wide since it included actions having no nexus with the generally recognised concept of terrorism.

A 59-page verdict, authored by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, suggested that parliament consider replacing the definition of terrorism with a more succinct one by bringing it in line with the international definition of that offence and focusing on violent activities aimed at achieving political, ideological or religious objectives.

The apex court also suggested that parliament consider suitably amending the preamble to ATA and also remove all offences from the Third Schedule of the act which have no nexus with the offence of terrorism.

When offences do not qualify to be included in the definition of terrorism, it puts an extra and unnecessary burden on anti-terrorism courts and eventually causes delay in trial of actual cases of terrorism, the verdict regretted.

ARTICLE CONTINUES AFTER AD

Crimes committed to settle personal scores cannot be treated as terrorism even if they cause fear or insecurity in society, the apex court observes

A seven-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by the chief justice, had reserved its ruling on April 2 on a number of cases clubbed together to determine the definition of terrorism. The meanings, scope and import of terrorism in Section 6 of ATA had been a subject of controversy in the Supreme Court since different benches deciding different cases had differed with each other as they understood and interpreted the term differently.

The Supreme Court also clarified that crimes designed to settle personal enmity or private vendetta even if they cause fear, terrorise the public or create insecurity in society would not fall within the definition of terrorism.

'It is clarified that 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 sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act 1976,' the verdict said.

Section 6 (1)(b)(c) of ATA describes terrorism as the use of threat designed to coerce and intimidate, overawe the government or the public or a section of the public or a community or a sect or to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society.

The definition includes offence to advance a...