Terrorism redefined.

WHAT constitutes terrorism? The Supreme Court on Wednesday provided much-needed clarity on the answer to what has proved to be a conundrum even for many legal experts in this country.

Read: 'Terrorism' too widely defined in Anti Terrorism Act, says SC; recommends Parliament bring changes

In a 59-page judgement authored by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, the seven-member bench not only held the definition of 'terrorism' in the Anti Terrorism Act as being overly broad - something that has repeatedly been pointed out - but also that the courts have not always interpreted the ATA correctly.

In fact, the verdict acknowledges that through the course of the various amendments to the law, parliament has arrived at a definition close to the international perception of terrorism. That is, it is 'a species quite distinct from all other usual and private crimes howsoever heinous or gruesomely executed'.

The verdict says that as per the ATA in its present iteration, terrorism is a 'crime with the object and purpose of destabilising society or the government with a view to achieving objectives which are political in the extended sense of the word'. Thus the motive, or mens rea, rather than the fallout or potential fallout, is critical to determining whether an act constitutes terrorism.

The verdict directs the courts, including the superior courts in their appellate jurisdiction, to revisit their interpretation in which 'the shifting of focus from the effect of the action to the design or purpose behind the action had not been noticed'.

The Supreme Court verdict has also rightly held the preamble to the ATA as being problematic because besides providing for 'the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence'...