Terrorism And Sectarian Violence Case Studies
🔥 Terrorism and Sectarian Violence: Case Studies with Legal Analysis
🔍 Overview
Terrorism and sectarian violence have plagued Pakistan for decades, especially after 2001. Pakistan responded with:
Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997
Special Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs)
Military Courts (2015–2019 under 21st Amendment)
While these laws were meant to curb violence, they raised legal challenges regarding fair trial, due process, and constitutional protections.
📚 Case Studies with Detailed Explanation
1. ➤ Ghulam Hussain v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 82)
Facts:
Ghulam Hussain, accused of sectarian killings in Karachi, was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) by an ATC. The defense challenged the conviction on the ground that the murder was not terrorism but a personal vendetta.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Upheld the conviction.
Defined terrorism as an act intended to create fear and destabilize society, regardless of whether the victim was targeted personally or randomly.
Court emphasized that intent and impact on public order matter more than motive.
Significance:
Set an important precedent clarifying that sectarian violence falls within the ambit of terrorism, even if it involves targeted killings.
2. ➤ Liaqat Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504)
Facts:
Constitutional challenge to the establishment of military courts to try civilians for terrorism.
Issue:
Whether trying civilians in military courts violates Article 10-A (fair trial).
Supreme Court Ruling:
Declared military courts for civilians unconstitutional at the time.
Held that parallel judicial systems undermine civilian courts.
Significance:
Strengthened due process and civilian judicial independence.
However, this was later partially reversed under the 21st Constitutional Amendment (2015) for temporary military trials post-APS Peshawar attack.
3. ➤ Suo Moto Case No. 16 of 2011 (2011 SCMR 2336 – Karachi Law and Order Case)
Facts:
A suo moto case initiated by the Chief Justice due to ongoing target killings, extortion, and sectarian terrorism in Karachi.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Identified that political, ethnic, and sectarian groups were running armed militias.
Ordered law enforcement agencies to act without political influence.
Recommended deweaponization, police reform, and deradicalization programs.
Significance:
A holistic judgment that acknowledged root causes of sectarian and terrorist violence.
Marked a shift from reactive punishment to preventive and systemic reform.
4. ➤ The State v. Muhammad Rizwan alias Jameel (2017 SCMR 199)
Facts:
Accused was involved in a suicide bombing targeting a religious procession (Shia procession in Lahore). Tried under the ATA.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Upheld death penalty.
Cited that the act aimed to incite sectarian strife and create public fear.
Reiterated that even if a specific group is targeted, the public nature of the act justifies classification as terrorism.
Significance:
Reinforced that sectarian targeting in public space constitutes terrorism.
Emphasized protecting religious freedom under Article 20 of the Constitution.
5. ➤ Asfandyar Wali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 607)
Facts:
Constitutional challenge to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, due to concerns over due process and judicial independence.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Upheld the ATA with several amendments.
Directed that trials under ATA must comply with fundamental rights, especially fair trial under Article 10-A.
Significance:
Ensured ATA remains within constitutional boundaries.
Balanced state security needs with civil liberties.
Recommended redefinition of terrorism to prevent misuse of ATA for non-terror cases.
6. ➤ Rana Naveed v. The State (2020 SCMR 1001)
Facts:
Rana Naveed was accused of killing members of a minority sect in a targeted shooting. He claimed personal enmity as the motive.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Rejected personal enmity defense due to nature and context of the attack.
Held that sectarian killings are inherently acts of terrorism, regardless of personal motive.
Upheld conviction and life imprisonment.
Significance:
Strengthened zero-tolerance policy toward sectarian violence.
Emphasized deterrence through effective prosecution.
⚖️ Comparative Analysis: Legal Trends
| Legal Principle | Judicial Position |
|---|---|
| Definition of Terrorism | Broadened to include sectarian violence & public fear. |
| Sectarian Killings | Prosecuted under ATA as terrorism, not ordinary murder. |
| Fair Trial in Terror Cases | Strong emphasis post-2010 (Article 10-A added to Constitution). |
| Military Courts | Conditionally allowed (2015–2019); controversial. |
| Misuse of ATA | Courts cautious against applying ATA to regular crimes. |
| Protection of Minorities | Reaffirmed in multiple cases as essential constitutional right. |
🔚 Conclusion
Pakistani courts have evolved in their approach to terrorism and sectarian violence by:
Recognizing the public and religious nature of such crimes.
Applying ATA selectively but effectively in such contexts.
Ensuring constitutional safeguards, including fair trial and judicial review.
Balancing national security with civil rights, especially after the misuse of laws during past regimes.
Despite some shortcomings, the Supreme Court has shown judicial maturity in defining terrorism, clarifying jurisdiction, and upholding the rights of victims and the accused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments