Junaid Rehman Ansari and others (Petitioner) VS The State (Respondent)

S. rr F ATA *r Fe^ss'i^," "L-, <rr * l^ .,. ,.^ f .*-"*1,., ts.^\ to(.

CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT IN REGARD TO REPORTING

1, ( I ti /: ., \ .r l- . t-l*,r

J*,.*.t Q-. L,,..'- A.*,..,: vl -iL. sl..t.

1- c-tL.,i

HIGH COURT OF SINDH

Composition of Bench s3:/D3. L-..'\-- 8'- [ M" T"r'[- N1.,,L--.--.1 'I.Lr,-l K "-t["-.'

Mr. Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, Nl* Srtr 'r.^--. ( L-c'^'s-...'LA-^ A [-8..r-i Date(s) of Hearing: to -rL- \e, o l ' r- i'r Decideon: t6-cl -2}fg

(a)Judgment approved for reporting Yes rfr/

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the judgment*/order is based upon or enunciates a principle of law */ decldes a question of law which is of first impression / distinguishes / over rules / reverses / explains a previous d€cision.

* Strike o!t whichever is not applicable

NO IE (i) This slip is only to be used when some action is to be taken.

(ii)lf the slip is uSed, the Reader must attach it to the top of the first page of the judgment.

(iii)Reader must ask the iudge writing the ludgment whether the Judgment is approved for reporting.

(iv)Those directions which are not to be used should be deleted.

Icil PaBe No.2 ol9

Page No I ofg

THE HONOIIABI-E HI(;II COLIR'I OI SINDH AT KAR{CHT.

?.tition No.- Drted: / /2009.

,hdd Rehrnan nsari & Otllers Pctitioner

\'crsus

Tbc Statc Respondcnts

f.bieca: - REQU trST TO.D ECT,AR}J S.1 I - I.' O F A N'I'I T E RIIORISM ACT. leeT AND St:B-StclloN (l) ()t'sEclloN 401 Cr.P.C. l-tI t .ItA v I RLrS l llt ('o ' l Ul lON fh Constitutioo of Islamic oi Pakistan ensures the fundamental rights to thc itizens and all citizens are trealed cqual before la\r' but, unfortunatc ents madc in thc Aoti l'errorism Act, 1997 vidc 2l-F in the year I and anothcr amendmenl of sub-section (l) of Section 401 Cr.P.C nade in the year 2005 havc rcstticted th!'convicts lried and sentenced under pro visions of AnIi Terrorisnr Act. 1997 from all sorts of remissions lrse a mendments are incbnsistenl with Article 8. in violatiott of nnicle ab) and Afiicle 25 of the Colrstitution of the [slarlic Republic of Pakistan are required to be dcclared ultr.r vinls the Constitution and ingly struck dow'n on the lbllowing grounds:-

N DS

l. That since tl'tc pronrulgaLion of Anti Terrolism Act. 1997 and subsequent ameudment in th is Act has changed Lhe definition of I heinous crinlc becalrse there is no dif'terence between the offence committed by any ordinary individual who undel various circumstances gets involved in the crimc of kidnapping for ransom by 'ferrorism tbe Anti Violent Crime Cell and charged and tried by Anti Cou s under rhe provisions ol Anti ferrorism Act. 1997. whereas the se ol prourulgation ot Anti Tcrrolism Act was to curb the isrn activities qorrnlitted b1'various JIILIADI groups involved in sm acts against the State and against other coutttries. r'r'ho are charged and tried b;- Anti l enorist Courts

L p.io, to thi FIL,rtrrrl!c'r,,n ot .'\nti letr.rli:tn Act 1907 nltr'l ot' boff"na". rr<re heitr$ clt.ttled und tricd iir th< r)lhcl ioLrrls sllch 'ls' E*l,nl::

Et ;:" l,:l,l'::, rilli;i,:',,il:;'h:l;: : i J'ill lttd $rit of in tlte nctir irics ,r):,rrn(t tl']c State ehlllengtn!, the Ii anA rre enp rred in hllck rrrailing rllc gr-'ret'nmcnt b-r rorious r,, iie ',,i' rrr.,c[' Lii;rrp1''n; llre $o\''rnrI:eni f;.t

rol

.r, r l ..l

!)l \il!r I r ,:rr 'r:

tl

[i-,

f,) {'f

'i

lr

') V

|l*r' ,.t#t

*Q--\

-.. ,, i ft ) --_.-.ir n^^...--.-5.{* \.i,... - -.--ia-:.rErttt

E I

) .),., Ab.lul (iLrrkiof S/(, fi.:rrrrr L)tr, '" - l. .:

i

Uull.L:] L:.aLl ll.r'jrrrr S'I Irrrra 'l'ltrL .IilrhrrrLrarl Tauran :irLr S rrrkrxr' NlLL rtrLrlnl nl ' , AiLrar lqbrl S,o lv1lirnllrrlrNl ^l'rrn1 il'r'iJ-

G,

',i lri I I r.r l) rrrr'. ) .' lri' rr''rr ' ll '" \i.l..rfir,.rLL lIr lS"\l'lu l1r'l 'ir tr' .i , ,,,r.. ., \, t,. \ , 1.,,. ,,..,, r.r,,r' i,., , \LJ-. l,l 'r.'

( "r't1]'l "r.' li) hc \(r\(,1 rhr,',,g[ \nt,LIrtrr(!rl(nr 'rirl l(ulrrcLi

'l ake r,,'lrrt ..

r l\ ll r)l: I |rjlli \ rl l'

lnt!tnl. lailitr!:!"ir llr' rrr'11rr wil h .'"r'L!(l ll (,1\'.r rm(l.r nr'r hrnrl tLLrri r':L'llLr ll (( rIrL llrr' ,,,ili, 'i\i ,r 1\1.

Lr.,r

I. M

I

I

I lc'

a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

(ExtRA oRuraRY co*s ruttovaL Jt)FtsDrcttoN) t CONST PETIIION NO OF 2012 8'-tl' ,.t'' Prcscriictl oi1------:- IIi,IEER SON OF HAMZO GORAR t'JSLI[4. ADULT, RESIDENT OF.

Df Pxtl ii(tistrlr \tllitl

. LLAGE SOJHI]O GORAR,

_EHS]L

MEHAR, DISTRICT DADU

, S IVIEHAR SINDH PETITIONFI]

VERSUS

1 PRO\/INCF OF SIND[]

THfioUCH TS SECRE T,\RY

HOMI: DEPARTI,,IENT

SINI)I] SECRETAITIAT

KAFACHI

SUF'ERINTENDENT OF .]AIL.

CENTRAL PRISON KARACHI

3 INSI'ECTOR GENERAL I'RISON

KAFACHI RTSPONDEI]TS

P ErIrI Ql\-UNP,EB BflllEll-ge lliltll:_ qQN sr IuIla! !E_.!SLAM]A

BEBU_E!.(; OF PAKISTAN, 192,E

The Pelrtroner above named mo d respecttully submits as under l Ihat the brolher of Pelrloner was nominated in F.l.R/ Crime No 4111999 He was arresle(l on 28 07 '1o99 ri aforesald c inre That Safdar son of Haorzo Gorar, the brolher of the Petilioner along with t\To others namely Abdul Ghafoor son of Muhammad Umcr. Alloo son oI llall Rahrn Dlnc .lakhio were convicred and senlenced v de judgmenl of the learncd speclal Court Anli-lerrorism Hyderabad in speciel case No. 41/1999 whereby the aboY. mention€d Accused wen) convrcted on 09.03 2000 as under:

Sectron 302/34 PPC. sentenced lo dcath

section 394/34 PPc sentenced to impnsonnrent ior hki lne c[ Rs ry'lv 5 50.0001 rn defaull Sl 2 years

I

li\

a

I

IN I HE HICH CoURT 0I SIN'I)H T\T KARACHI D :-,sg' E C.I' N,r'- ' 1'?r 1l .l Irrr,st,rrtrrj o\ R E- J--/l l) Saiid IqL'al son oi Chulanr Sarwar. ,---:-\===-= l)rt sentlr'.coniinrrl in Central prison At K.rra.hi fip.__-- , ,. , i",j".,., t\-..

I

il :) Zr,.,r I(ll,.rl.(,n L,r jt ,t.rnr s.rrl!.r

L

I'rcs.,rrtl., ( i,1ir,r'rl ,l ( e tr,rl l)ri{'n t .r.r( t.j l'( lili(nl1'rs

'I

hc Superilik,n(letrt C.ntrnl I)rison, Kdri.lli I I l.ilinll otfi( r .rt Ccnlr,tl lajl Kara.lli

I

I l IrrspFct(r' Cor 'r.11 l)risons. Kararhi Cerltr.rl Pris(in, J.ril l{ atl, Karachr.

I Thc Prot incc ot Sindll I lrroush i Secretlrr\ ll(rne I )cparlt)lcnt.

Gov!-rnnlcnt ol Sindh.

KnrLrchi

l flle SlittC Ilrr('rrrh .. \.. I ,.. iYU / l't1,\ ll.(,,1 \rD(lh'Y il'..1 I(esp0n(lcnis

CUNSTI'I U'I t()N PI I lr IoN UNDLIT A I{TICI.L' I99 OI ttl NSI-n Ut t() \'- ()l IS LA i\l tC ITEPUTII IC oI] !'-\ IilSl,rN 19 7l l l1(, pctitionL,rs sutrnrit r\ unLlrr

lh.rt th{r L))rrt t,r(ts lrnrJirril t(, rhr iIstlt(lti\,rr 0f ptu,s,Jrt p{.titir,jr .ir! thrr lh. r\l tjorr(,rr / c,,n\ i.t\ rnrn(,1\ (l) S.rlirt lql.,ri rl] (,1 ChLri.rnr S.rr$..rr Fr.(,cr:rrtlr fonlit.,,il jl] (-t,rlf.r] Irri!irr. l\.r'.r.1-. ,< il) Z.rr.rr loLrnl crjn (!t (,hrrl,rnr $,rr.rr ar.. l)resfitl,. i0Iiirie!l in a(Dlr.ri I,r.rsIn, (,11.161,1. ,r.,,,... .r'nrirtp!l 5,. r\r t, L.'r( ]1\nr ( (,Lril \r, Ill. har.achi rrrr ll)i)l:ll(la.,rl,rr L,rrr,lLrsi.r,I ru.rt i)t llli N(, hthr:0()t. t .,,\ lr,a,.\,'11 I, l, ( . tr c. ( ;ul\lr.rn , _lqb,rl, Kalachr, arrr.i rr!r.t n\1nr'Li,(l litt' intfri5(n|l1(.ill r\s t11.,1. *",,, .t]r.(\tr (l ,,ll

ll).-

IN I'HE HIGI{ COURT OF SINDH A'I KARACHI

C.P. No.D-584 of 2009, D-206 of 2010, D-3950 of 2012 and 2784 of 2014

I r.I stie iluhantttlad llbil Kallnro, ltlt. ltslil'e lrloh/itrl', ud Karnn Khan Agha, N{r, lustic. Shnnsuldh Al,basi.

Pchtjr,nl'r l. Junaid Rehman Ansari & others.

2.Khursheed Ahmcd & othc$ 3 Zameer S/o. llamz-o Corar,

4.Saiid Iqbal & other!' throush Ra) Ali Wahid Kunwar, llavi Pinjani and llaq Nar{az Talpur Advocates.

t(esp()n(lerrt,/5tat(, Thr State throu!,,h NIr. Ali Haider Adrtiti,rn.rl PC Si'ldh

( )n ci,urt Noticr': N{r.!'alman Talibuddin, Atl!crcah' Cicneral Sin.lh Nl/s. Kashif Paracha Deputy Athrmey Ceneral and Mukesh Kumar Khatri, Assistant Attorntv Ccneral.

L)a ics of hcarinll 10.12.20rri, 17. 12.20r8, 0u.04.2019, 06 05.201e, 20.05.2019, 24.08.2019, 26.08 2019 and 02-09-21,19

Date of announ(ement 16 09 2019

IUDGMENT

Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J.- All the petitiorurs havc been u)nvicted fot various oflerrses under the Anti Terro sm Act l9r(ATA) "rnd have been awarded valious s€ntences on conviction. Th6e Petitions involve the same single queshon of laur'and as such we inten(l to disPose c,f tllt- same throul,,h thi5 one c(nnmon judgincnt.

2 The qu€stion of law is whethcr s€ction 21F o{ the A'1A which ill essencc provides that no person convicted and sentenced under the ATA shall be cntitled to remission is in violation o{ Alh.les.l ,12, 13 and 25 of the lonstitutiofl and as such it should be stru(k down as having no lcgal effect.

t

tt3

3.It has alleady becn held by this court in CP D-572l2006 lhat Section 2'l F of the A fA whiLh was incorporated as an amendmcnt in the nTA on 15-08-2001 shall not have retrospective effect,

4.Since thc petitions in hand questioned thc validity of a section of a pir'ce of Icgislation in tcrms of its constifutionality thp dvocatc Ccneral of Sinrlh and Attornt,y General ol l'akistan were put on noticr, to assist this court under (Ider XXVII-A CPC.

5.Learncd counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted llrat some oflenses under the ATA ra,ere also covcred under the PPC espc'cially in terms of those o[fcnses listed in 5.6(2) of the ATA.

6.The petitioner's argument was that there was a tlvo limb test for the offense to fall under the AIA. First]v, that before an acl could lre deemetl to be an a.t o[ terlorisnr for the purposcs oi the ATi\ it hatl to bc an act \a hich fell hithin thc purview oI 5.6 (2) (a) t,) (g) for instance at (a) involves the doing of anything that causes death which r-\'as equivalcnt to the offense of murder u/s 302 I'l),C and that in both cases of .n offclls€ under 5.6 (2) (a) to (g) being (ommitted both the a.tus reus and mens rea o[ thc offense had to be proved. However lor thc act u,/s 5.6 (2) (a) of doing ol anything that causes deatlr to afllount to an offens€ under the Al n there h'as an additionil mens rea retluilement. Namely cither 6(l) (b) or (() also had to b€ provcn. He also poirited out thnt for similar offenscs purely under the PP(: such as mur(ier under S.302 remiision was allowed but il the oilense also satislierl 3.6(1) (b) or (c) and tell within the ATA thcn no remission $'ds permissible. He submitted that in mdny (asos convictions undcr S 6 (2) (a) to (g) of th€ Al A lea(l to hi8her sentences than the basc sentcnce under the PPC, for example u/s 6(2) &) AfA u,hich !,v'as the offensc of causing grievous bodil)' iniury to a Person u/s 7 (c) ATA the conviction was hiSher than ths similar ('ftense u/s 5.337 L (a) PPC and that to some r.xtcnt this cnhanced senteDcc was,ustifie(l as a rlouble nrens rea hid to be proved undcr the ATA which lead to an cnhanced scntence bul could not justily the ex.lusion ol'remission under the ATA, bearinll in mind that an er,hancetl s.ntence had already been Eiven under the ATA as compared h'ith some'offcnses undcr the PIt uhich nould le.-rd to a lurther enhancenrent of the s€ntelr('e which \ads_,

Irq

unjustified and was a violation oI Articles 4, 12, 13 and 25 ol thc Curshtutioll.

7.ln this respect the petitio ers produced the following table of offenses under the A'tA and PPC setting out the sentences in rcsptrt of each lor similar offenses.

/ CO Tt PA R I S ON I' ET'I\E LN I!.\TE&CES

S C H L D U I- E

PROVIDED UNDER A TA 1997 AND PfC IIJ6O is PUNISHIIIFNT l 70) G) D..th {,r Drath (,i nnv ",tL Qdtl e-Anid

io 25 years Jbrrt

being alive, or than l0 yearsl

oftcr its birth nerthrr ,le\.nptrrtrr hr lt'

(b)t_l IConrrrion rerh I s.324 I \e.rrs. or hne. or lnrpri\L',rnNnt ('t I Doei anythin8 I rmprisonment Attempt lo eith€r dcs( riptk'n likcly h, cause shall bc not lesr I Oatl e-Amd I lo, l{r} u.rrq /r'J I u- ru y."'s u,rt I tinr enddnSers life. i ertend to I but death or i'npnsonrne ol I tl

| __L__

I tir. a *itt' t,".-

Convi.holt with s.337 L (a) .__l Drnlin,DJ Crievous Itn,p,r,,,nm",,t tbdily or- iniury rither Jesr-flFh.,n l

I (d) s,427 Nri,.hicf cnd not less dlan l0 lhoreby cnuring pr.,perty is amount lo 5Lr of Ufe and hith rlt,'!{.!s

(d)Convrcti0n $'ith s.365-A K napping (,r KdndpFing or Iite nnd f(,rfoihrre lmstaBc-taking lift, and shau also elt0rung dnv Iiable to ProPeBr' or

rlr Not ApIli(nbl,, lija( knlg rmln$rllnent ol l lif" ".d rr!" 1

(ff)Shall not be les.s s.265 Imprisonment 0f Dedling with eilher Lies(nptior u/s 6(2XeP) fine.,f nn) impri$onment oI fine lifc.

a s.286 F.rplosives So dealmg !vrth Di{(, I G) Con! i.lion r! itl s.295 DestroyinS, u/s 6(2)(f & g) Not l€ss tlmn 2 damagirB or deliling a pld.e In1o, or tx)th. Inriting morc than 5 of worshp 0r Hatred, ye?rs & s,ith fine Itcligious witl int€nt t0 Contempt, insult thc ct(:/Vtlilartrsn1 reli8ion of anv s.295 \lalicienrs insulrint the kr 2 years, or

(ht Con!iclion to (h)'S.296 Terrorism talls imprisonmenl of Caushg a u/! (h) to (n) sub-se.tion (2) €n8rge(i rn rel4lious life and with line worship.

(i)=s.148 Rn,ln18, armccl

Iinc, or h)th.

(i)'s 437 Ilis(hief !r'ith eithr descriFtion fine.

(k)= s. 384 lmprlsonment of Ext,rtion cither de{nption ] Ior 1y€ars or fne or borh

(i)= N/A

(n)= s 3s3

tll,

lor 2 years or fine bl)th.

discharge ol dury.

(") = s. 1s?

obstrurting public sen'ant

suppr€ssing

10 (i) Ernntple s.120-c .ithu descriphon not le6s than 5 fallint u/s (a) m(,r. than 10

or tt'lir.

s.124"4

cithcr des{riphon

5.144 eithcr dl}sl:riptlrln r{ith any dea,llv

5.1E9

'I hrcatenin8 a

Iut,lI servant $,ith rniu4,t()

s.365.

PuttinS or

t.(,th

r t'l

Ttzl Shall I'e N0t Applicahle Not applicnblc punishable with under this act

irtcludntg oflenccs o, kidnapping for a hiia.knr8 shall

prr'1\'rl! I

L Thc petitioners next submitted that the purpose of someure being imprisoned was cssentially rrformation $'hereby alter completinB his pris(,n term the convict would come out of iail as a reformed person who tlould no lonBer en8age in criminal conduct and would be an dsset to \(iiety and if a convict l{as denied remission this would just mako thc (onvict more bitter and rcscnt[ul to the State and tum him into a hardcned (riminal ivho on releasc would comnrit rn([e crimes dnd thus as a mnttcr ol F,lt \. all ( (,nvicts should trc entr tlcd to rcnrissio,r.

9.The pctitiofiers rai aruument however was that not allowirrB rernission to persons convicted under the ATA was (ontrary to Alticle 25 of thc conslitution where all peFons were entidcd to equal lreatnrent unclcr the law. ln that in all other laws in Pakistan (whether general or sprcial) the convict u'as cntitlcd to remission on his sentence

10.In this regard, in particular the petitioners placed reliance on the [acL that both this rourt and the Suprcmo Court had held that ihe (lcnial of remissions to convicts undrr the N_ational Accountabilitv Ordinan e 1999(NAO) by virtue of S.10 (d) NAO was un(onstitutional behg in violation of Article 25 of thc Constitution and drew a conrparison with S.21 F Al A which br the same reasoning was also in violation o[ Article 25 of the constitution.

11.In this resplrt the petitioneru relied h€avily on the fact that there vyds no reasonable classification in excluding ATA convicts from remission as there &'as no intelligible differ€ntia which distinguishes persois or things that are grouped together from those who havc been left

t{8

12.The petihoners even submittcd lhat S 6 (1) (b) and (c) ATA tould not.orxist $,ith S.21 F as in essence 5.6 ('l ) (b) and (c) ATA wcrc d i(ferent mcns rea requilemcnts ard as such under S.2l F remission should be allowed rlepending on whether the mcns rea was proved in either 5.6 (1) a (b) or (c) ATA.

13.The petitioncrs stressed that in rpspect of the subject issue no inteiligibie diflcrentia existed \a'hich distinguishes pcrsons (ir things th.1t are Ilrcuped togethcr (ATA convicts) lrom those \^'ho have bccn left out so as provide a reasonablL'classification for trcatjnli peoPle in the same.lass differently which &'as cvidenl from the fact that when the A'lA was arnenrled in 2001 by amongst otlrer things ins€rting S.21 F u,hich dcnicd remissirrrl to ATA convi(ls no reason was given in so doing, anrl as such the amendment was without intelligible differentia criteria and lvas absolutely arbitrary and as such the addition of S.21 F in the AIA throu8h the amcndnrerrt Act in 2iJ01 rdas also violative of Articie { oI lhc C('nrtitution. lhe pctitioners further contencled that Nazar Hussain's casc (Supra) was not appli(able as it did not considel the islue of thc conslitutkrnality of S.21 F ATA on nrcrits but merely rcfcrrei-] kr it in passing.

t.l. ln the allernate the petitioners submitted that if this court were to find S.21 F AIA not to be in violation of Article 25 of the constitution thcn rcmissions mav be allowed in convictions for those offcnscs under thc ATA which imposcd greater sentenccs tl'lan under the Irlrc. Another alternate submiEsion was that i{ this court were to find S.2l F ATA not to bc in violation oI the constitution thcn at least the convicls under the ATA should be eniitled to thc earned remissions. ln this regard thcv drew this courts attention Lo the fact that some remi6sions wcre regardetl as gencral remissions whilst others \a'ere regardcd as spe(ial remissions lnder the Prison Rulcs and some remissions ivere eamt by the ao,rvict for example, by giving blood, completing the tast duling the holy nNnth o[ Ramazan, pa8sing examinations as laid down in the lakistan l'rison Rules 1978 as amended from tinre to time and at least convicts undcr the ATA should bc given the benefit o[ earnt remissions and that in anv event renussiorls wcrc, right anJ nota prrvilege.r

lt!

15.I'r support (lf their contentions the petition0rs placcd relian.c Drr Saleem llaza v. The State (PLD 2007 Knrarhi 216), Hammad Abbasi v. Supprintendent, Cen{ral Adyala Jail, Rawalpindi (PLl) 2010 t rhrrre {28), Superintendent, Central Adyala Jail, Rawalpindi V Hammad Abbasi (Pl.D 20t3 Si(l 223J Muhammad alias Khuda Bakhsh v. ATC Makran al Turbat and 2 others (21)18 P. Cr.l,J 118) Mazhar Iftikhar V Shahl'az Latif (PLD 2015 5C 1). Nazar Hussain and anothcr v. The State (l')l.D 2010 S(' 1021), Mujeebur Rehman v The State (2014 P Cr. L, 176l), Lx, Brigadier Ali Khan v. Se(retary, Home Department, Covemment of Punjab (PLL) 2016 tahore 509), Muhammad Ali v, The State (2011t YLR Nole l9l), Ntuhammad Nawaz and another v. The State (l9tt7 SCN.Il{ 1399), Habib- ul-Wahnb Alkhairi and others v. l-ederation ol Pakistan (PLD 1991 fcderal Sh.iriat Court 236), Muhan,mad Ismaecl v. Secretary flomc Department, Govemnrent of I'uniab (PLD 2018 Lahoru l ll), Abdul Aziz Nlemon and others v. The State (PLD 2013 SC 5g.l),Chulim Asghar Cadehi v. Sr. Supcrintendenl of Polic€, fradu and 4 otherc (PLD 201u Smdh 169) l.A.Sherwnni V Covernment of Pakistan (SCMII 1+)1 l0.rl) 10.17), National Conrmission on Slatus of Women through Chairperson and otlrcrs v. Governmenl of Pakistan throuth Se(relary Law.rnd ,ustice and others (PLD 2019 SC 2018), Baz Muhamamd Kakar and othere v. Federation of Pakislan th.routh Ministry of Law and lustice, Islanrabad and others (PLD 20]2 SC 870), Smith Kline & French of Pakistan Ltd. Karachi v, A. Rashid l,ai and another (PLt) 1979 Karachr 212), Governm€nt of Pakistan through Direclor.Ceneral, Ministry of tlterior, lslamabad and othcrs v. lrarheen Rashid (2011 SC\4R l), Tnriq Azlz-rd-din and others: in rc Humnn Rights Cares Nos.83{0, 95U4-G, l393ec, 13635-P & 14306-G to 143309-C of 2009, (2010 fMI{ 1301), Abdul fabbar v, The Chairman NAB throuth Director General National A(couitlability Bureau and 3 others (PLD 2{)16 Peshawar 298), Syed l^'ajih-ul-Hassan Zaidi v. Governmenl of Puniab throu8h D.C. rhelum and 2 others (1996 Sclvllt 558), laved labbar and 14 others v. Fed€ration of Pakistan and others (Pl-D 2003 SC 955), Dr. Mobashir }lassan and olhers v. Federation of I'akistan and others (Pl-D 20'l(, SC- 2u5) and Orrlirl,nce XXXIX ol 20{11 Anti-Terrorism (Amendrnent Ordinance) 2001.

16 Learned Deputv and Assigtant Attomey Cenerals subnitted that th(,r'ases citt,il bv Lhe pcrihoner hal no rplcv.ncc t(' the rnslJnt petrtior in4 i

l2_ o

that Saleem Rnza's cass (supra) concelned the striking dolvn the .xclusion ot remission under S.10 (d) in the NAO as was upheld by tha suprcme court in Mazhar lftikha/t .a6e (supra) and not S.2l F ATA wlich also exclucled remission for those convicts who wete convicted under tlrc ATA which w?s a distinct piccc of legislatiorl dealing with heinous crimes as opposed k) (orruption and that both statutcs had tlistinct objectives; lhat although l.l're Balochistan case ol Muhammad aliaB Khsda Bakhsh (supra) had uphcld the striking doltn ol S.21 F ATA and had reach€d finality as it had not been appealcd to thc Supreme court that case lvas not binding on this court and was only of Persuasive valLre and in addilion it appeared that the Court mav not hdve been ProPerly assisted as the Supreme court case of Nazar Hussain (Pl,lJ 2l)10 SC 1021) which had dealt h'ith the issue of the constitutionality ol S.21 F ATA had not been brought to the courts attention. Likert'ise thc case from lahore being Hammad Abbasi (supra) rvhich was decided by a single iudge atain did not havc the benefit of Nazsr Hussain's case (Supra) and in any evcnt rvas remande(l back by the Supreme court in the case of Slperintendent. C€nlral Adyala rail, Rawalpindi V Hammad Abbasi (Supra) to te decidcd afresh by the tahore High Court and the cds('shll rerrain€d pcnding before the I.rhore fligh Court. In .onclusion he (ontended that the Federal Covernment had already issucd guidelines of remission and in these there rvas an intelligible dillerenha u'hich ensured that S.21 F ATA was not discriminatory in tcrms of Article 25 ol the Constituhoi and since S.21 F A'fA did not violatc any provision of the Constituhon it should be upheld and the petitions dismissed. ln support of his ('onleitions he placed reiian(e on Nnzar Hussain's case (SuPra) and the remission policy of the Prcsident of 2002 which rcmained unchanged to date and had bcen relied upon and reproduced in Nazat Hussain's case (Supra)

17.Leirned Advocate General Sindh submitted that firstl-v the issue had been $ettled by the Supreme Coufi in Nazar Hussain's case (Supra) that thcre was an intellifiible differentia and sufficient distinction had be€n made for differcnt classes of pcrson to not receive remission under the ATA. He secondly submitted that in any evcnt remission was nol a riSht In,t rathcr a privilege extended lry Statutc and thus it could not bc claimed as such as of dght. That S.2l F ATA did not violate an,l Articlc of the

I

IL\

constilution and that these appeals should bc dismissed. In suppoft of his .onlcntions he placed reliance on thc indian authorities ol State of Haryana and others v. Mohinder Sindh (2000) (3 Supreme Court (lases 39.1), SIale of Harynna and another v. Jai Singh (Supreme Cuurt of India Appeai (Crl.) 661 oi 2002) and Iameel Ahmed v. State of Raiarthan and others {2007 Cril.l 2009) and a summar}- apprcved by the Chief Minilter ot Sindh datcd 09-08-2019 allora'ing spe( ial rcndssior to prisonprs (nl tl)p o.casion o[ t1d-U!Azha and Independcnce day 20I9 except frx, amongst othcrs. those convi.ted thp A I A ',n(l.r ltl. L,eamed Additional PG submitled that there had becn no violation of Article 12 (b) of the Constitution as it was pedcctly lcgal Ior different laws to imposr. different scntcnces, that there h.td been no violation of Articlc 13 of the Conslitution as it was not a casr of doublc Jcopardy ; that th{lre had bcen no violation of Article 25 as the cxch.rsion of rt'mission rvas not discriminatory as the ATA dealt ra,ith heinous offense d[]ainst s(tcictf wlrere as the NAO wherc 5.10 (d) of the NAO had bcen struck down as b€ing dis.riminator! orJy dealt with financial crimes which were nol heinous crimes which were intendcd to frighten and intimidate society '!,"'lrereas offenscs under the AIA were heinous crimes the Lntention of $hich rvas to trighten and intimidate s&'iety and ordln.1ry citizens whether men , wonren or chilLlren an(l as such thc ATA was not on the samc fqrting as the NAO and wa5 a distinct statute $'hich had a dillcrcnt objective to the NAO and as such the two could not bc compalecl lbr purposet Df dilr:rinrination un.ler Article 25 (l1 tlre Constitution in terms ol h,hethor remission should l,e allowed or not and as such sin.c thcre hnd been n(, violation of any of the Articlcs of tlre Constitution S 2l F A'lA should re,rain in the lield and the petitions be dismissed Insupportolhis contentions he placed reliance on Nazar Husgain's case (l't.D 2010 SC

19.IVe have hcard the arguments ot the learned counsel I()r the partics, gone through the record and have con$idered the relevant taw inclucling that cited at the bar with their abie assistarue.

The tri(hotomy powers.

20.()ur constitution is based on thc trichotomy of powers sharcd hetwcen the legislature, the exLrutive and the judiciary each of whom has t

l>r- its distinct and separate role to pla), in our system of govemancc an(l each of whi.h is supposed hr a.t as a check and balancc on the other orllarrs oI state operating within its own rlefincd sphere of poler as provided in the law and the Constitution.

2l Within the tri.hotomy of pciia'ers it is the role of thc legislature to make law,s ard thc role oI the iudiciarv to interpret thos!'la*'s il such interprctatiol is necesliary. It is ivcll settl€d lala, that il r statute has c)iFressly provi(led for somethin8 without any ambiguitl then thcrr is no questi(,n of thc (ourts interpretinlI the sirme as the lellislativc intcnt is clear and the Act/Ordinance must be tliven cffect to unless it is doemed to be contrary to the constitution. l'he iudiciary's firc ol lnterprctati(,n ol thc rtalutL. only arises lvhrn thi, stahrte is to a (ertain c.rtent cither rrn.le.rr ()r amblguous or is pr'irl.r facie in violatiorr ()[ the coristitutit)n and in such cases it is f()r thc'iudiciary to int(,rpret lhat piece (rf legislat$n L,y trying to as.ertain the intent of Parliament in passinB tllat legislatiulr. The Courts have absolurely no authority or power to substitute their views for those intended by the legi$lature simply becaose they may disapprove of a particular lavr and the way in which thnt law is being applied.

22 l)1 this respect reliance is placed ('n the case of Justi(e Khurshid Anwar Bhinder V Federation of Pakietan (PLD 5C 2(n0 4Ul.l'.493) whercby a lartlcr Bcnch of the Supreme Court hcid as foliorvs:

''A li|rda t tdl ynn4tle of Co slthtlulnil (?rlslrrl.litrr ,r4t ah|rr.vs bt'eir lo gR e.[ct l to tlr ottnl of ttu lrntRts of lh orlnnk lntu a d of th? peolt ndol'lt g il The l\ P sklr irt the .l|tlstt t lio,t it t:o shturon is th! 1 t.ntto,t L! tt t,tnlcr. it,1l alopt.rs lthet th. language ol th. stdt tc is fiot ottly plaih b t a.httits oI lrut o e rcaning lhe task of intcryt latio cafi httntlu lte \ai.l to arisc. It is nt t illou,able to intetpftt u'hat has no ,eei of i terfttalion. Such lutt9ulnge bcside lrlares, uithout n&rc, th? i tttttiort of the ll1lt |it,erc artd is l4isixe ott if. The rklp of co stnttiort is "to irtteflrl the Legislittttc to hatc ttt.t t u,hdt thev ha.'e actttallq txPressci". lt natt?tF ttttt, ir strch a tus4 aLl&t thc conseque ccs tav be. Thpreforc i.f the tfi&uling ol thc Ia tutNt' uscd i a stalule is finfibistous a d is in drcoti tt'ith iustice attd co1t1\'rti?7rce, lhc co rts (\t fiot bustl thams?htcs tuith suqlrtts?l i te tio s, hott'?ver aclrltirsltl. the sn,n? nlaq ba bccaus?, irl thdl e?ettt thcy u,oull lre ttu 'elittg bwoti tlrcir Prouture afid legislaai t.lot th.tr$el.tes. BLtl il Llr cofitlril rf lltt ynl,isia tlstll sholt! lhnl lh.tt \1!ti1tg itlt'tuldl \ts sontrlrhnl lcs! lhnn lht ords plaitlv tiftr lt) near lh tht r.-rtt ntttsl int?rfn l lhil larguage in utcorL rucc ltilh tlt? i,l]'ltnt]|' of th? tntpnttott L)J tllc Irgislature so ini lv gi1e The Jirct antl prirnary tule oJ

I

ll

t)i rc sttuctio is thdt tlrc nifiliott of the Legisldturc fiust be l.r fld i the uorils uscd blt th? Legisltltut. itse\. Il the .)orils uspi nff cnlRble ol ouc co strutLiofi ottlv the it ujouli not lrt optfi to thc court to ndoll inv other lnryofhetical lotlslrutlion o the Srott l lhdl stll.h lupotheticul rtnstructiott is llorc corl-.iilet u'ith the dllcg.d object onl pL,li. v (,/ l/'. A.t. " (t old n.lded )

23.5.21 li ol the ATA is s€t (nrt as rindrr

" 2lF. Rernissions.- (1) Notwithstindirg anythinS cont,rirred in any lar4 or prison ruler lor the linle being in lorce, n(' rernissi( in nnv sentt,nce shall be all,rwql [: a Ps15en, who is (rr],"i(tc(l an(l soitcnccd for an] offence un(lerJhis A.t,

Provided that in case of n child convicted and sr'rrten.ed lor an offt,nce under this Act, on sntisfachon of Eovernnnrnt. nrav bc granteci remissi()n, as.l.,e ed appropriate" (bold adde(l).

2-1. ln our view rhe wordnrg usclt in S.2l F of the ATA on a plain readint, is absolutely clcar and requires no interpretation by lhc courts Nanrl]_, tlut that the legislature intpn(led that no remission would be applicablc to persoru convirted for offcnses under the AfA. The legislature r,r'ould have knora'n the ellc!.l oi such a section an(l would hdve provided it in the ATA after much thought and consideration cspecially as it was addfd by way oI an amendment to the ATA four ycars altcr thc A'lA was promulgated by Ordinance No.Xxxlx oI2001 dated I5.0E.2001 Thc fact that the anrendm€nt was n1ade lour years aftcr the prtnnulgation ol th!'AlA in ou vieh' suggests that the legislature atler dcbating the issue must have had good reasons lor insertin8 S.21 F into the ATA since as a Elrncral rulc thc legislature does not pass legislation or amcnd cristing lcgislation for the sake ol it In most su.h cascs new lcgrshtfun .rnd proposcd amendmenls to existinp, lcgislatron before being Fass(l ioto lat! by thr. I€gisldture are vcry oltlrn sent for discussion snd debatc beiore the rorcerned standing parliamentaly comrnittee in this casc,law, for debate and ccrnsi(lering th€ reasons, l)ros and cors fo! passing new leEislation or arnendinll existing legislahon. Perhaps in this case a rise in tefforist acts rn IrakisLu lrom 1997 up to 15.0E.2001 when S.21 F was incorporated in the AIA prompted the legislature to make this amendmcnt for dcterrent purposes. lvhether or not the denial of ren,ission is harsh for convicts unde! tlre ATA is not Ior us to pass judp,nicnt on as this issuc lies within t:

l>q

the tlornain of thc legislaturc wlmh as t|e discussed above would have had in its wisdonr its own re.1sons. aims and obiectives in inscrting S.2l I- in the ATA in 2001.1t L\ also signifi.ant to note that despite the insertion ol S.2l F in the ATA over 18 years ago nofle o[ the three successive a ,lemr)cratically elected le8islatures have tleemed it fit to remove S.21 F frun the ATA rvhich is an indication that successive klgislafures are satisfied that S.21 F is iushfie(l in ATA casc.

25.Wc would. at this stage, like to make it.lcar that in our view policy anrl thc purpov,' behrrrrl sentences rvhich the lcgislature deems appropriate for certain ollcr$es under the law whether rel'orma ti ve/ dcterre t/ puniti ve or othcnvise and the tinre convicts spend in iail on thcir conviction as provided under the lah' for a certain olfen* i5 outside our domain to .onsid(lr//deternine as ludges This is lor thc lcgislature to considcr and dccide upon in its wisdctm beirrg the chosen rePresentatives of the people as a matter of policy \ryhether 14e agree or disaBrce with this policy as judges whose rolc is to intcrplet law or test its constituticrrality is oulside our domain. lf the legislature is of the vieu' that the pe(,plc lvhonr il. reprerents no li,ngcr agrec with its polcy t., deny rcmissiors to Fersons convi.tcd under the ATA then ii has thr ability tn repeal S.21 li ATA. We, as iudges since the language of S.21 F is (lear rnd {nambiguou,r are only con(erned with lhe i6sue whether S.2l F ATA is in violation .rf lhe Constitution or not.

26.As such most of the authorities cited bv the petitiuErs whi.h con.crn the rationale oI allowinB remi.s"sions ale of little, ii anl, assistance to thcm. Likewise the authorities cited by the petilroners concernin8 the release oI a convirt on },arole/liccnsc or prolration prior to thc cxpiration of his sentcnce since such relcase (,n Fan,lp/license or probation is speciJicallv pern tted undcr the relcvant legislation dcalin,j with the same unlikc.emission under lhc ATA which is specificallY exclurled undcr the

27.The ATA is a special larv and it is well scttlcd by now that it will lake preference over a gcneral law a d even other spe.ial laws such as the Pris(,n Act strce the ATA has been passed later in tinre with the legislaturc t tr

tzi being rvell aware of the s1-stcm of remissions provided in the Prison Rules and yet deliberately chosc to exclude them by specilic intent by insertinS S.21 F irto thc ATr\. S.21 l'as noted above.lso contains a non obstante clause which spc(ifically states that," Notwithstanding anylhing contained in any law or pdsorl rules for the time being in for(e .. ........ "an(l as sur'h rvill ilso override thc sections in The Pakistan Prison Rult's (Jail Manual) u/s 59 of the Pristrns nct 1894 in so aar as ther relate to rcmission.

28.ln our view, thereforc, ihc only question that needs to lre answered in this case is whelher S.21F ATA as contended by the petitioners is in contravcntion/violation of the Constitution and in parti(ular Arti.lei 4, 12, 1.1 and 25 as would justi,l,the aJorcsaid section bein8 slruck down br this rourt.

29.We have alrearli, set out S.21 F antl since the pctilioncrs have contended that the af()resdid provision is in vi(,lati(,n ()l n rti(bs l, 12,11 .rncl 25 oI th€ C('nstiirrtion wc bv way of assistanct, s€t out Articles 4, 12, l3 arrd 25 ol the Constitution below and shall consider the petiti(rrer's arguments in respect oI the sanre.

The Articlc 4 of thc Constitution Argum€nt,

30.Arti( le.l ot lhc (:onstitution reads as un(ler;

"4. RiAht of irdividuals to be dealt ivith in a.(ordanc€ vrith larv, el(.

(1)lo cnjo) thc protection of lat! and to be keatcd in accordaflce with law is thc inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may bc, and of every othcr pcrson for the ti e beirg within Pakistan.

(2)ln particular-

(a)no action detrimentnl to the life, Iiberty, body, reputation or Prope*y of any person shall bc tnkcn except in ac(ordancc w,ith Iarv;

(b)no person shall be prev€nted from or bc fundered in doing that which is not prohibited by Iaw; and

(c)no person slrall I)e eonrpellcd to do that rahich the la\^, does not require him to d0 "

L

I.1

t2_ 6

31.we do not collsider Article 1 to be of particular relevance to thtltc pctitions on a stand alone basis as h our view 5.2'l F ATA is in ac(ordan.e rvith law, no person is prevente(l from or being hindered in doing that h.hich is not prohibited trv larv and nor do€s it conrpei any person to do somethinS t,,hich the law does not rcquire. In short every one convicted under thc AI'A will be dealt in the s.m€ way in ac(ordan(e with the law as provided in the ATA including S.21 F and as such S.2l F is not in virratir)D oI Article 4 of thd constitution.

The Arti(le 12 of the Cotrstitutiun Ar8(mcnt.

32.Artnlc l2 ot th. C,)nstituhorr rpads as under:

"12. Prolection dtainst retrospc(tive punishmeni.- ('1) N(r Iaw sh.rll .luthorizi- the punishnrcnt of .r pc'rson -

(a)For an a(t or ornissrolr that rvas n(,t punishable br- Llw at thc time of the act or omis.sion: or

(b)for an offence by a penaltl greater than, or of a kin(l diflerert f('m, thc penaltv prcscribed by law lor that offence at thc tim€ the offen.e !{-as.ommittcd

(2)Nothing in clause (l) or in Arti.le 2/0 shall applv to.1ny iar\' making acts of abrcgation or sub\,ersjon ol a Crmstituti(D in lbKe in l)akistan at any time sin(c tha twcntv-third day ol Nfarch, onc thousand nirrc huntlred and fitty six, an oftencp".

33 ln our view A-rticle 12 (b) is the olrly Part of Article 12 which may be of some relevancc. We are of thp view however, that Articlc 12 (b) is mcant to apply to situations where gomeone had comnlitted a crimc and at the time of committjnB thc crims th€ sentencc n'as 5 years but.fter he conrmittcd the crime the lara is amendcd to enhance thc sentence ior that same crime to 7 years and as such under Article 12(b) it is cnsured that the accused 's maximum sentence or conviction is onlv 5 years ra hich rvas thc ol1ly *-nlenae lvhich v,'as available when he cunmitted the rrime and not 7 years ia hich l,ds the senten.c ivhich 11?s imposad for th.'sanle oifensc after he committed the crime which would ptevent a blatant udaim€'ss befallirrg thc atcused and woul.l shield him Irom such evenhrality. ln our vie$ A.l2 (b) has no rclevance in cases !\,here a Ferson is givcn a sentcnce prescribed under the law at the timc when hc commits the oflensc and/ t5

tl l whcthcr rcmission is availal)le or not urder the statutc for tht, ollcnsc which he.ommiited. As such we do l]ot find S.21 ! ATA to be in violation of Article 12 of the Constituiion

The Arti.le 13 of the Constitution argument

ll Article l3 ol the (l(x'rstitLrtion r,t,dds ns un(ler;

Arti(lel3. Prote(tion againBt double purishm€nt and self- ill(rinrinalion. - No person -

(a)shall be prosccuted or punished for thc same ollencc fiore than oncc; or

(lr)shall, shen accused ol an offence, bc comp(lled to bc a witness against himself.

35.In our vieq'rve find this argument to b€ lvith()ul substance. A plain rc'adinB of Article 13 ol the Constitution clearl,! shows that it only (a) e\cludes prose.ution and punishment lor IIc same olfense more than once and (b) crcludes sell incrimination. Arti(le 13 has in our view nothinli to do with remissions. This is becausc undcl the ATA tl'lc, accus€rl on conviction for an offcnse under thc ATA is only sentenced/ punished as provided for under thc ]aw. 1he a(t of refu6in8 him remission in our vicw lloes not amouilt to fum being punished for thc same offense more thdn once. He is only punishcd {or one offensc an(l the question of availallility of remissions is 1;ovcrnecl by thc law and is a mattcr oi concession not as of riliht. Similarly the issue of s€li incriminati(',n is not relevant to the issue in h.ind

36- fh€ ta.t that a convi(1 can l€ giverl a higher scntcnce if convicted under the A1A for a similar offense committed undd the Prc is in our view fully justilied by the heinousness of the offcnse namely tcrrorism and the additionat meni rey'other aspedr of lhe offense which need k) be proved. For example, in a simple murder case uniler 5.302 PPC the actus reus and mens aea will need to be proved. In some cases thc murder is on aacount of enmity or disputes over property or othcr grevances bet*'ecn two parties. This cannot be equated hith an offense the nrotiYahon/ design and intention of which is to causc trrror to the public and destabiliz-e state institutions and govcmments which elevates the offense kr a dilferent lc!,eI. lt is perhaps this distin(tion being the sheer t6

l?-?

heinou6ncss of the (rimc rvlich is motivalcd to terrorizc the general public that has led to thc legislature deliberately and consciously e\clu(ling remission as a dete €nt.

'fhe Article 25 of the Constitulion Argument

37 Arlicle 25 of the Constitution reads as un(ler

25 Equality of citizens. - (1) All citizens are equal belore la\a- and are entitled to rqual protection of law.

(2)I'here shall b( no (liscrimination on the basis of sex ["1

(3)Nothing in this Articlc shall prevcnt the State fronl makin8 any speciil provision for the Protection of !vomen an(t.hildrcn.

38.We notc that lcamed counsel for the petifioners in respe.t of theit ar8umcnts in recpect o, Arti(le 25 have relietl on the cas€s ol Hammad Abbasi (Sup!a) and Muhammad alias Khqda Bakhah (Supra) deeided by the Lahore High Cout and Bal.xhistan Hillh Court respectivellr which both struck do!!! S.21 F A I A on accoont of it being in violatirnr of Article 25 ol the Constitution. The casc ol Ham.rnad Abbasi (Supra) lrowever was set asi(ie and rernande(l back to the I-ahore High Court tor a fresh d.,.ision L)v thc suprenre court in thc case of Superintendent Central ,ail Adyala v Iianrmad Abba6i (PLD 2013:,!- 223) sin(e the l.rw olficers had not ht'e put on nr)tr.e to assist the court undcr C)rdcr XXVII-A R.l Cl{ which u'as a mandatory requirement of the law lvhen the constitutionalitv of any provicion of a Statutc is under challenge alrd thus it is no longer in thc field and so far as we are ar4are has y€t to b€ decided a Ir€sh. fhe.ase of Muhanrmad alias Khuda Dakhoh (Supra) decidcd by the Balochistan High.ourt in 2018 !€lied on the case of Hamrnad Abbasi (Supra) which was no longer in the field ancl thc case of Saleem Raza (Supra) ilhich (oncerned a 3 member Ben(h of the Snrdh High coutt holdiig as unconstitutional S.l0 (d) of the NAO which also did not Pernit rernissions k) persu1s convicted under the NAO on a(count s.10(d) NAO beinB in violnti(D of Article 25 of thc Constitution which dL'cisior rea(hcd finality and was in effe(t upheld by ihc Suprcme Court in the case of Mazhar Iftikhar (Supra) on thc samc reasoning namely that the cxclusion of reorissions for pcrsons convi.ted under s.10 (d) NAo tvas in I iolation o( n rticle 25 of thc constituti()n and was as such struck dor{rl. r/

tal

39.It ra'oul(l appear that a brief analysis of these cases tcn(ls to shora that the case of Hamnrad Abbasi (supra) although rernan.led bv the Suprcnrc court for re'hcaring tended to rely upon Saleem Raza's <ase (supm) wherebl' S.10(d) NAo $'hich ercluded rcmissions to pcruons convi(tcd unLlcr the NAo was found in violatir.rrr of Article 25 of thc Constitution rvithout a parti.ularly in depth anal]sis ol hovv the Court rcached this decision in Saleem Raza's (ase (supra) as uPhcld bY the supreme.ourt in Nazar Hussain's casc (Suprd).Liktwise the rltr:ision of thc Bak(hista Fiigh Court in the .ase ol Muhammad aliac Khuda Bakhsh (Supra) rvhich also rclied uPon the rase of Hammad Abbasi (supra)

40.Th s, for all intents and purposes we neetl to carelully consider t)oth the.ases ol Saleem Iiaz€ (Supra) and Nazar Hussain (Supr.r) to sec iI \,r'c can lind anv judicial guidance in temrs of whcther S.21 l- ATA is in violation of Article 25 of thc Consiihrtion as was found k) l,{'the casc in rcspect o! S.10 (d) NA() *hirh also exclur.led remissions lbr thosc PerHons .onvi(krd unrler the NnO.

.11 'l h(, ldrv rellardinli dis.rirlxnati l undcr Article 25 oi the C('rrstitut;rxr is settte(i and was well set out in thc.lassi..ase oi I.A.Sherwani (Supra)rvhich held as under:

- -An. 25(1)--All {iliilns flft .qltnl b.firft l.(.l, r l e titittl to tqwl fircfurlitn ol la|.- Stetc, hotLtcle\ is ,tot llrohibited lo tledt its citiz?ns o lhe basis of a tu$onable classilicofittn R sanablr ./irss i/i iro r-- n ttlst t or L'n te r io lor t lassrlrdrl,.rr n\ lr rleli Io l r tiD n of A l.

r 2 5 1 { ).

Cliuse (1) a{ Arttd.25 oJ lhe Cn,tttihttion ol Pnlistu (1973) e shti cs thP basn tn .efl oJ relryion of lsl rt. Hot{Iff, this is tlt,u' krtollr as the gollefl priftiple of totlttt lulisPntderrce, u'hit:h ettittts lhul all cttizrns are tlual btJirc lot tnd ar?. oii lled to ayal Prolrclnn ol lau (l 108 1) Follotiing are the prificiltles with ftgaft| to equal Ptutectiotl oI lau afid nnsonablcncss o/ tlissili@tiort:

(i)lhat lqual proLectio oI luu docs ot cttt'is/ige thnt erery rltizcn is to be tr.stcil nlike in all .itcurnsta ccs, but it cottt?rnplat$ that Pttso s sinildtllt situetPd or sirrtilarly placPi are lo bc trrdted dlikc;

li lhat rcasorable clasrilicntittfl i5 pennissible bul it nfist be fLtuxtlcd on rcasrntabl? ilistirk'tiofi or ttttsohdble basis;

is

13(r

(ili) thul tlifftrent lnn,s cal/, t'tlully be tia(l?d fot lilfere t sexcs, pereols i,t .lifl;er(nl ,rg? Sroups! pctso,B hnt:lng dtJlptenl Jia ctnl ilandinss, and pe$orc accus?.l of htifiols (itnc.;

(nl thul ,to slatrddttl ol' ni],afi l apllicnliott lo lesl rc ,]Utbleness oJ d clissilicatiofi ron he laul dor,n as t:h may ltc rcasonable tlassifcallJ,n i,t u pnrliculfi set oJ drcu tsta os n&! br ufireatandblc it lhe Dlher sal oJ cin:!fislark es:

lht a luut apl ying to t) e lercon or o e clisli ol Fcrsons niv Ir( co,lshhlnndlv Tahtl if theft issulfr(icnt hnsis or rcnson for il, bul a dissifi.nho tahtch B Mbtlruty und is nol .fttutdcd ofi any tnlotwl bnsis E no tltrssi.li liott ns kt Naftnnl trc lh. n,Ethtlof A,'hcle 25)

1t'i) lhal eq nl prcteLlon ol la , ,t&nt$ lhnl nll frsons apally plarei b" lrcfllci trlitt holh i,, lrril lag?s ct' lirtud nnd lt bil ips inryosei trrt tltttt tj) or,n, n, ,,ri. I tli'sl nlnt; .llt:\,Inrh(, )l .lh,uitl b.

(a)on a intellirible differe|tia fihich distinguishes pirsons or things tlqt atc grorqreil logclhct frotfi those uho hatle beefi left out;

(1,) thot thc dilJerentia nrct hau rational netus to the object sought to bc dchieoeil btt sr./rh rlassi/icatiotl (p I)ri)tt itlcs is tu .Ltssi/itttiL' t,. ns tulor:- kl I lau' ,nuv be constth/tiofiul et'e lhott\h il relale. Ia a sngle irulirdual t.f, an oL:towt ol so tc sl,elidl ctrtu,,stufices, or reasons a\l icahlc lo hi t! ot npplicnblr lo olhers, thil single indt llual trlty le lrcnlel ns a dass by hi $elf.

lb) Thttc rs dhrxrvs 11 prciun+1lrti itt lttt'<tw ol llt totlstthtt(rnillu of eltul tcut ,]tld lllp l)uri!.11isrp ht,t rlfi nllicks i, to s/rori) lhal ll*:rc has l)*:,t n Ll!\r Ir.rr,itr"rssr(rr of lhe rcfisliluliDttil yriaples Tfu person, tturelorc. a]o pleuls t dl Attilp 25, hus lx? uulnted, ust ,hake o t lhat not otrly l,,'s lrc bcctt tftat?d iifferctily hott olhers btl h? lns bcen so treot?il fr<,nt pen;o s sirltildtly tircumston.cl toithout n y reasonible lnsis qnd suth li/f"re titll trcitme t has becn utjustifiablv tn ( llokt'wr, il ts .\ilruL,lu hnzanlo s lo ieci c lht tpesliofi oJ' tltc {o slitrhonnl Mhdilv al i ptotNsuDt o,1 th( hnsi\ L1f tlp sultlt|"tl .r sf./ti,' of .fnls by nistngt presu \ rcn. P/t\rn+1hot1\ tlrp resorlel la lte IlE tn.,tte/ does ol nln l oJttrett prool or ulpt ll;(/e E so1t1t, p (lrcnl dln&Iry h prudkt ctidrttce lo Prol'e a ltarlt tlnr facl;

t) it flnsl be prcsu ci th t thc Le*isluhtte undtsturnls |tti aorftctly aplrcciates the nceis of its otan prcplc.

lq

l:! i

that its fuauts drc directcd to ptoblerlts Mde maiikst bu *lerierce, utl thdt ils iiscirfiifioliot$ are based o adequate gtot ds;

(d)the legislatuft is lrce to re@t izc the ileg*es of harm atil nay confinc its rcstictiott to lhose &$es Nherc the necil is deefie.l to be the aleattst:

(c)in onlet to susldi tl , pftsu plio ol tunsliil tonnltq, lllt {:ourl , iV lnfu i l(t rotsid?rutiott nlolhrs al $nt a k nulelic, natlels of tonl on rey)/|. thc history o/ the limes and fi.tv ossunte eo?ry state o/ facls uilich ccrl be cotreioed e sti g t t the tifir of lcgistitlioi;

0 1t'hilt ilLnd [ath rnd kno tprlg( if tlt rtis|,tg to,lhliotls o,t lh? pnlt ot th? LeBishtlrrc arc to fu pr$n rd, it lhtr? ts flolhi g on Lhe .face t:l lhc Int, ot llu sunounditg Litcur sldncrs brutt|ht hr thp fiohcp of llt? Ct\u ott u,hidt lhe .lasstllottion iy rcn,ofiably be regardtl *s htsed, tlr lresutlption of \lle mfishh to alil! curtttal be t|tflel to the tttc,ll of ihLtrys holding lhot ll\'ft nusl be sa N undisLLas*l md utkno,tt r,'nso s lor stllll.,Llittg t:erlnn l,lit.,tluals (,r cnrpLtrihotts to hoslrle or disl rin|,l,tlttlt legishlhtit;

(S),r , lf rssfrr(,rll(,J t|d ttl h,'5ttt 11i\tri1U ltt,.t lny.ni!y

(h)thp lalidilv of a ntlc l:!rs lo bt ludspl by dsspssr,S ,15 orx rrl/ eflctl o 'l lt fu pickmg up e\tryLotnl tns.s. Whttt the Court hus to sec is tohethet the classificatiort ,rtt dc is jusl oflc tuking all aspe.:ts irrto L'orlsi.lemtion lP. 1066) (bold adcled)

42.Sherwani's .ase (Supra) has rcmained good la$' ever sin(c and was follL ,ed in the cascs oI Covetnment of ualo(histan V Azzizullah ttlemon (PLD 1(r3 SC 341) and nrore r.\'entl), l)y a full bcn(h o[ the Ilon'ble Supreme Court in the .ase of [)I. Mubashir Hasan V !ederation of Pakistan (l,LD 2010 r.- 265)

{3. lndeed it was the interprelahon of [.A.Sherw.ni'3 case (suPra) !'is a vis Article 25 of lhe Constitution \^'hich laid the io'rndation f(,r S.10(d) ol the NAO being found to be in violation of Article 25 of the C-onstitution and led k) that provisi()n bcing stnlck down in Saleem Raza's .a8e (Supra).

4!l In ()ur licw one o[ the kel e]er cnts in determining discrtnindtion co as h) lp.ld to a viohtion of Article 25 ol the Co stitution as set out in

L

llr

Sherwani's case (Supra) arc the following principlcs which have alrcadv bern reproducod above but for ready rcfercnce are,igain set out belo\^;

FollorLti g nra the lrir\:ilrl.s tt)ith ftg ri to ctynl frctettiltl ol Ltu, ixl rauson ble css of clissi.ficdtion,

k i) lhnl in onbr to mdke i Llassilication mtsofial,lc, tt should be (t1) on ah tutellitibb twrphtia which listifiguishes pctso s or |hbU<s tlfit arc gtouped together frofi tltosc tllto hatc bpefi lclt out;

lb) that thc dilfcre ti/J ttust hauc tdtio nl ncxus to th? obicct souglll to bc achifled blt su(h clossilication (p i0S6) (bolJ addcd)

Itrilciples ds t(t cln$sti4rion rc ns tt ler:-

(O Thcre is altays a presu tption t laljour ol the .ofistit tio ally of ar1 ctfittflent dnd th? Lulden is upo hifi who..tta.ks it to shou that thele his ltecfi a cle lransgressio ol tha (otrst{httional printiples 'fht petson, lh,nfurt, tho lLais thal Athtb 25, hus betn riolnttd, ,fiust nake out thdt ot ofily has he bk,fi trcatcd dilfprcnlry Iro otherc lrut he has becn so trcaled frorn percorlt similnrly cit.rtnstanu tt'ilhoul .utlt tc\sonablp basis a d sudt differenttul trcat cnt has lr?? uttitstiliiblr nid?. ll)lt,ct).r, il is rttrcnrlv ho.nrlors lo tlrtilr ltu, tlut,sllt,lt tl lh & stilulkDnl wlidill/ af n lroristott on lhc hnr\ ol tltt' s lll'ost1/ €.usli f,r?' ollicts hV nlis?1E d f.stttrl iott Pttsutltlttto,ts Qn, re\ort€l lo rultcn lhe t nth:t docs ol idnut ol di Ll l,rdn ir lE //rrr rs srrrr, lndinl difli,:nlllt 111 ttradtit ei\tu i, h1 pt1),\, it t)utti l f! t: (trld arhlctl)

45.According to these principles S.21 F ATA has a Fresumption oi rcnstitutionaliq and the burden lie6 on tl€ petitioners to prove otherwise. Now if we apply these principles to S.l0 (d) NAO which excluded remissions t(, th()re penions who rverc convicted under the NAO as w.1s discussed in the cale of Salc€m Raza (sup!a) it blrcomcs apparent wh) 5.10 (l) NAO tcll foul of llrese principles. ln short, this was brcause in Pakisinn therc ar. a nunlhr of laws dcaling with cr)rrupti(xr like thc NAL). for example, the Prevettion oi Corruption Act (ll) 1947, certain s!'ctions of the PPC, Offenses in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Or(linance 1984, Provincial ACE etc. Now it is quite possible that similar ofieises oi corruption as contained h the NAO can bc tried undcl tlEse r'

lli

other Acts/Ordinances dealing with corruption instead oI unLler the NAO. Ihe up shot of this is tlEt a person convi(ted under sav, the Prevention oI CoruFtion A(t (lI) 1947 lor a similar offense which cxists under the NAO and is 6ubieat to a similar serltenae w(ruld be cntitled to remission r4,hereas a person (onvicted under the NAO tor the sinrilar oifense having thc simil.lr sentence ivill not be enhtlcd to remission. Thus, it was apparcnt that persons who had becn convicled of similar offenses oI corruption but under ditlerent law's dealing wilh corruption \,!,oltld bc treatod dijlcrr{rll} in ternB oi whcther {)r not th{ry wcrc cntitled to rcmission. I hus, by thc insertion of S.lllGl) in the NAO lvlreretr) Person's t ed under that law rvere excluded from benefitlnB from rerrission nnd whilst those tried under other laws dealing ia,ith corrutition in rcspcct of sirnilar olfcrl.scs ior lvhich the]_ received similar sentcnccs undpr thc NAO and were entitled to remissron nradc an unreasonable classification since in respeat of offenses und€r various corruption laws there was nc) intelli9ible di/fcre tii uhich distiflguishes persotts ot things that arc gtlrup?.l togcthcr ftott thosc .oho ha1,c bcct ler4 orrl. Hen r'S.10 (d) NA() \\'as rightlv held to be dis{riminatory and in violation oi Arti(lc 25 the 'rf Constituti(,n [rased or1 the princip]es laid doi{n in sherwani's (.se (Supla) because in all cases the persons wcre tried under diifercnl corruption Iaws but in sonre cases rcmission lvas allowable and not in other caltcs. The cornmon feature is that nll lhe accused were tried under diffetent roruption laws for similar offenses bul which each had a different letal (oNequenae in respect o, entitlement to remission' {6 ln thc .as€ ol Saleern Ra"n (Supra) which *'as largely based on Sherwani's caee (Supra) regarding disc mination in terms of Article 25 of thc Constitution the courl at P 152 l'ara 15 cummarized thc Position as "This bri|gs us ht lhc plinillbs it-.r'etning lle lrarisio s pcrl,itnns t|t fim&nncnlal rigltls Btl rnnlrl titdu Articb 25 q tlu' Cotlslitultott klnti S lo ll| &luul lltat?.lia oJ lou'. lhis Atli(le P,tlo s thrl all ctli:l"ns rc {lual l,efore latu and at e tilled lo ?qual protcttion of 141r, i.e., all pefiant sallerl.t! lo ldtu sho ld hp lrcated ilike uider all t'ttclofislartues n l & iihons both it lltit'iL|?s conlerred and tt lht lnhiltties irtpose.l- Il ,11ust t'e ,l otr{sf equols. The equdlity hns to bc betk?c persotts ttlu, are placed it the sanrc sct of circumstartes. 'fhc Buatatltee of equul prctectitDt ol the lnu requircs thdt oll persofis shall bc tqatcd alike, uttil?t like cilcutttstt ttcPs ,utd t:oiilitiofis. The Phrase "equal plotection ol lao" eiaisaged by :l

r?, tr

Aniile 25 lrl the Constit tit,t,tteu,ts thal o Persott or.lass o.f ltctsotts tooulil be dPni.i tlQ sa,fie ftotcctiott of laul bhi.h is e ioqeil blt pctsons or othu.lass of Pe6ofls i like cirttmsta,t.es il ft.sppct of thcit li/e, liberty, ptoperttJ ot lrursuil of httPpi css P?rcons shrila y situntpd ot il, sitfiilatt cit(uttrstattces aru lo ltP tr$tctl in tlft snt,rc niu(r. l lhr ,lll,ln'itto,t nl thst pnrrLiples, ]to \,rtt,-, il ln\ all.rlv\ hcttl n'roi tici lhil .lrsrl/ir?lrtrr o,[ l,trsLl s nr //r,,Is ir ir fio u'iv rq)r{ntlt to th! ctlttnliht io<1r',t, },ro|,il(l lht Lhlsstlcnlrcn E ol nrbilfiry or,nltuinul is .lltlrnl nnl rciJLrnuhb n, l)t\i/s a fdt n d snbll,lfilinl reliln lo lhc $ie|l al legtslaltolt. ll ttt?nfis lhat ht'o st,ts of sirtrilar cit. ,rtstttttccs shall not lqu" tlilfcrcrtt Ieyl elfc.ts. ufllcss thrft is i lift"rert.e (t circuthslan<cs tutd th( .lifleft ce bchuc?fi lrrs kr,o scls is Btaial Prtough to suppo th( .risclinir,,rtior. " (bold .i1ldcrl)

47- Like\^'ise in sumrnarizing the relevant casc l.rw the Suprenre r ourt in the ..rsc of Government of Balochistan v Azzizullah Memon (Fl L) 1993 SC l{1) whilst sunmarizing both the I'akistani dnd lndian law on this poinr atireed t^ ith/approved the above summarizati(Jn reterred to in Sherwani's (aee (Supra) and Saleem Raza's case (5upra)in tlre lollowing tern$ at P.359

"As lhe idgnte ls Jto lt tn lut$dtttitl,t lma b4 t.onsiftr l ot lht ill thts? ,rtlhorilit's lh.t. sftll,t lo 1,. tontl|nil)t il fi\11 lhdl alllLou)lll r /irss /egrs/dror lrrrs brrn hrbull:n. il p$nltle rtasonnble rldstiftiulto ftt thc puryNt? of b*slirtton. Permissible ctnssili(dti(),r is allo!v!'d provided thc classificntion is founded on inte]ligiblc difh-rentia whi(h distioguish(s p€rsi,ns or things thdt ar(' tlrot,Pc(i tr)gcthcr fforr othcrs r-!'ho arc lelt out oi lhe il(,up and $u.h Llassiirratjon and (liiferentia tnust b€ar a relnti()nshiP to tho obi(.t!i sought t(J l]c achierecl b1' th(, Act. TIrrc sho ld bc n nerus betl!:een lh. cl ssification a i thp obiccts of the Act.'Ihis Plinrtiqle slntboli.cs thdt llptsolns ot thir$s sittilarly situ|te.l catnot be distirtg isl?d ot dlscrirni ated khiL ,naking ot alpluing tlft l/]u'. It has to bc apyliul cqually to pefiofis situatcd sintilarly dfitl hl th( satt,c sitaution. A v ldnl nmdc (tr a.liofi lakc,l itl t) oli|tort o.f lhtsr Ptntt\l.s is luhle lo b? st/ ck doutfi. lf lh. lau tlothes an)l skttutorll nLtthDt'tv or horclio,ldry iulll un|uiicd anl nrhtraty poter ernhlitry l.t nd titltstcr t n dt$ t i atory n (r, su(h llrlti 'ill I'idole tqunhl| ddrs(. 'fht,s, lhe srbslrltut:|, ofid lltoc lun! ln,r a,d nction la/J'n undlr il .t b( Llullotgrl,ts oiol ilt a'Attitl"s I nnd 25."

.ltl. This conclusion was in essetrce reached b1' the .ourt in S.leem Raza's (as€ (Supra) at I'.169 Para 27 and 37 in the lolloraing lerms:

"27. As n tespptt ol l.l"hl sefl'an1s lound itt'oh,td itt colru?tio ot criuinal nrscotdutl, tlte ofences purtishabb tttder stLtions 218 und 219 PPC, lrhidt atc otdiinily trhble btl lhe Caurls speciJied fi lh. S.cotttl s(hedule to lle Cri rl Procedute Cule nrc ulso lnahlc by NAB Co"rl. 7hp punishm.nl n d lh. ,atw( ol ofrrn, r oa slil! 5 ,P. Sortl tlv !he, ll

l !!

olfttlis put shnble ur L'r S{ti.o s 468,47],, 411, 477-4 Pl,C an, tnable oritrmrily by lhe Co i sp?titicl h Second Sth*lule ta Criuul Pto*'t'trc C!,tle, t tlltrafrll|( ,rses l1y Spedal Ct)utls unit the nllb es i Rtrl]Ptl oi llnnks (S!.orl Courls) Ord tu,tct, 1984 nt Sptdal lui|ts Rl]l,i.,nletl unbt Pnl$ttu Critit Ltru Antentlt cnl Ac|1958, .ts tcll ns ltV thr NiAB Cottl bq t\d!i{ ol sththllc 10 1) of lhe N AB On{ixtnce. 'lh ndlura o[ oJIe .es ttrc s.dfit? t l lht ,,1.tlnshnr",tts prondei ap i,lsa th. stlnr Tht syect'tl ntk's ol' et'td.lit't {ofittuted n NAB Ortlinana, Pn?e l.]]]l of Cornryh\tfi At I -191/, Crnti al Ldr]' Al e ink t A{! lg58 etd Ollottts nt Rcsr,..l / B,rrAs (Sp.. l L-1u/ts) Llr,/rrxn.c. /gE.i, ,r1!o , r

s;utlu. Hou,c-ocr, merclv o nrtou,tt ol change of foruu one sct of t'on1licts xfitbt lhc satfi? cl ss not conuict?i by Accou,ttubililg Court shaq |te e titlc.l to re issiofi tutd thus sh.tll sen'" out thdr scttttttcpt trruch firliel than lhe other set of co t'itts it1 thc stfit? taflgortt ot tlass cLttltJi<t?i blt lha Accotottdbilittl Coutt. lt,$llt is too obf iotts that there is no inlelligibh' dilfcrc tia, distirYtish|,g ortc Sroup tt percofts .ftott otht gtoup of pprso s a d lhus, theff is tlo /easornble classlfintio ppftrlissible tor such Futqosc. l9l?rch1 o th? b&sis oJ change of.for r the classificrlion ca not he lpltl to bp pt,tissible as rcasotable bccause suth chtssif/ntiofi shall ,n1t fu based on anv real o ilsubstdntiol distittcliox." (lx,l(l ndLled) ''jl.T1L enltrc i6tussion nll.a,a, bads Io lhe (otlrl si\t lhnl *rti1 10(dt ol lht NAB Orthnance dcnying refiissiarl lt1 tre NAB .t rx.is /rds //li tllect of rhn L'l,t tl.[ purash eti a ,arled tut lht Nf I] rirrt'r.ts drd Iurther is.listirtitttltory as it i6 ol bssed o aflv ftosofiahl( a,rl ratiotAl classifiL'otiort. lt is arbitrarq tu rrature 4 d as argu?d btt tltp lcarnul D.A.G. is fltercly buscd o thc lrosis o.f theloru of triul is a rcdsottable a d fittir dl clussificaliofi base.l o int?lligiblr iiff?tcltid. Thc defiidl of rc isliofi toNAR.otuitts krtilcr secliott 10il) o.l the NAD Ot.linn,,.'e has no netus.tJith the object of thc lctislqtion tttd co se1 ollly, t't hold llnl il is .,iolitirp Ltl n Ll r(fugntltlt to lle protti\ion\ t:o lai&l ot AttuL' 12 nnd 25 of lhe Cottslilutilm. We nrc of Ih? t:ofisklcretl ollilio llnl s th frot,ision ol lnt t! not llernisstule and clt ol ltt \ntvd b(mg Nlerily ial litv of tllc It dal,l\ttnl right *utrr lktl t lh( (onslilu or."(bold addttl)

49.lnter€stingly in S.leem Raza's caFe (Supra) at P.171 Para 32 thr Court stated ab undcr in respe( i of no rcmissiu$ bclng pcrnrissible under S.21 F ATA rvhen dealint! 11'ith the exclusion of remissions und(,r the NAC) 'ljlc 'auli at hk€ ln fik( N1v ob!r'rnul]otl i,t rcsp?t:I Lt[ this Fruttsint lot lhp teusai lhal lhe WssllilihJ of assdil'ttR tfu al,ol,? yo1\srcn ltef)n, altV Sulcrior Corrt, cah ol lE rulel oul alld n y obvnul@ nl|'bl rs it lhis l dsn i na1/ ahteridy d,ftetl u y s b.eq ( l llotetlinis. Itower*,r, u,e u,ottll l*e to ubsen'e lhol fierel| rat/Je smilil pro:Jt'ton is i:o tni .d i lhe A h-Tetnir$1 tu1, 1997, it u:ill fiol ptotlkle nn)l ikqtilicntion for uphohlirq lhe pror:tso u drr l'lttlleuge. We u:ill ma|e d tentatioe obsenrd$o to the e/Ject that thc objecl of ehacting Attti-Teftorism Act, 7997 is citir?ly di/ferent frot the obi.ct soughl to lr? achiepei thtough the efiactneit ot its truln teits (ith t?fprcnce to tlQ lrcnicrlat latr tt/til(r aofisiilemlion," (bo1,1 ll

I -'r, t

50.So having considered thc rationalc as to wh,i S.10 (d) NAO excluding rcmissions rvas dcclared unconstitutional uncler Artielc 25 ol the Constilution keeping in vi€w She.wani's cace (Supra), Azizullah Memon's case (Supa), Saleem Raza's case (Supra)and Mazhar lftikhar's ta case (Sripra). Let us trow turn specificatly to the ATA which deals as it3 name inrplies i{ith icts of terrorism,

51.5.6 of the ATA defincs " terrorism" in the following terrrs " 6. Terrorism- (1) In this Act, "tcrrorism" rneans thc ust or thrcat of d.tion wht,rel

(a)the action talls within the meaning of sutFse.tion (2), and

(b)the us€ or thrcat is desiglctl to coerce al..l intin{ddte or (,r'erawe thc C;o\,ernment or the publi. or n section o[ thc public or communit! or s€.t or a forei8n govchment or populatiun or an intcmational organization or cft ate a scnse ol fear or inseauritr in society; or

(c)th. usc or threat is made for the purpost'{, advancing a religious/ sectarian or ethnic (ause or intimi(l.ting and terrorizing the public, social sectors, media persons, busincss cormunity or atta(khg the civilians irlcluding damagirg pr{rpertY b} ransarkirg, kx,tinli, arson or b}' an}' other mean5, govenxlent oflicials, installations, security l()rces or Ltw e,J()rcenrent agencies:

Prol ided that nuthing hercin contained shall apply lo dcmocratic and r.ligious rallv (rr a p€acelul denronstratron accordance with law.

(2)An "action" shall fall within the meanint of sub-section (1), if it:

(,r) invcrlves lhe doing of anything that c.luscs death) (b) involves grievous violence agairlst a Person or lrrievous bodih' iniury or harm h) a pe6on;

(c)involves gricvous damng€ to ProPerty including Eovernment Premis€s, official instalhtiinrs, *-h(,ols, hospitals, offices or any oth€r Public or Private proPerty includlrg darnaging proPerty bl.. ransacking, lootints or arson or by any other means;

(d)involvcs the doing of anything that is likeiy to cause dcath or cndangcrs a pcrcon's lile;

(e)in!.olves kidnapping for ransom, hostage-takinS or hi,acking;

l3 r

(ee)involves use of explosives by anv device including bomb blast or having any explosive substan(e u'ithout ant' lawful justification or having becn unla .fully conccrned with such explosive;

(l)invohes hatred ancl cc,ntempt orr religious, scctarian or ethnic basis to stir up violence or.ause internal disturbancc;

(g)involves Laking thc law in orvn hantl, arvard ot any punishmcnt b! an organization, individual r'rr group tvhatsocver, not re{ognizrd by the law. with a vii'ra. to .oerce, intimidnte or terrorize public, irrclividuals, groups, communities, govcrnment oflicials and institutions, including larv enjorcement agencieri be'!'orld the purview d the lalv of the land;

(h)involves firi^g on rcligious congregationt mosques, imarnbargahs, churches, tcmples and all other places ol worship? or random firing to spread panic, ur iDvolves anv forciblc takeover of mosquec or other places of w()rship;

(i)creates a scriuus ri6k to safety ot the public or a section rl the pubic, or is designcd to frighten thc general publi( and lherehl,prevent thern from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupts civic life;

(j)involve$ the burning of vehicles or any other serious tbrm of

(k)irvolves extortion of moncy ("bhatta")or propcrtt;

(l)is desiSned to seriously interlerc with or scrrcusly disrupt a communication system or public utility senice;

(m)involves serious c(rcrrion or intimrdati(,n of a public scrvant in order to force him to discharge or tu refrain irom dischargin8 his lawtul duties.

(n)involves serious violence against a member of the police fo(c, armerJ forces, civil armcd forcet or a publtc seNani.

(o)involves in acts as part of armed re6isLance by groups or IlJividuals.igdirL\l law erJorcenrcnt aden( icJ;,rr (p) involv€s in dissemination, preaching ideas, tcachin8s and bcliels as per own interprctatton on ljil stations or through any othcr means oI communit'ation without explicit aPproval of the Soverrrment or its concemed departments

(3)the use or threat of use of any acti.,n falling within sut! section (2), whi(:h involves the use ol Iirearms, crlrosives or tlny other rveapon, is terr()rism, lvhelher or nol sub-section l(C) is satisfied.

(3A) Notwithstaoding anything cr)ntained in sub,section (1), an action in violation of a conve.tion specified in the rifth Schedule shall be an act ol tefforism under this Act.

t32

(1)In this se(tion "actioli' includes an act or a series ofacts.

(5)ln this AcL terrorism includes any a.t done fur th€ benefit of a proscribed organization.

(6)A person who commits an offenae under this Beation or any other provision of this Act. shall be guilty of an act of lerrorism.

(7)In this Act.. "terrorist" areanE:

(a)An individual who has committed an offencp of terrorism under this Act, and is or has been concerned irr the rommission, pieparation iacilitation, funcling or inshgati(nr of acts ol tellorism;

(b)An indir idual ryho is or has been, whethel belore or aftl'I the (omintJ into force of this Act, corcenreJ in thc commis!ion, prep,rrationr Lrcilitat;on, funcling or instigatjon of acts of terrorisnl, rhall also be included in the meaning giverl in clause (a) above."

52.ln our view there is only one law which deals ra'ith ()ffenses (, terrorism in lJakistan and that is the AIA- As such unlike offenscs ot c(,rruPti()n wherc there are nutnerous laws dealing wilh offenses of corruption it cannot be said thot persons are Eeated diJferentlir in terms of rumission if they are convicted for oifcrl.rcs (,1 trrrorism since thcr. ir onlv one Alt namcly the ATA for whi.h vou can be prtxccded va,ith if your offense mcets thc definitiul o[ terrorism. As such all persons who are convicted of acts of telloriBm in Pakistan are of the 6ame clnsg and are trealed the 6ame in terms of remission. Namely, no rcmission is allowed to them and as such there is no questi,nr ot any l,erson wh() is aqrvl.ted for an act of terrorisn under thc ATA being trcated any diftcrentll. As such the denial of remissiixl uider the ATA is distinguishable frt,rn the fa.ts and (ilcumstanccs which lead to S.10 (d) NAO being stru(k down xtcre an acr.used could be trictl under diflerent corruption lalas ior the sdme oflcnse ard rcaeive the same scnten(e but bc entitled to rcmission in all su(h (nses utrless hc rvas (onviated un(ler thc NAO \t herc rto .emission war applicablc especially keeping in view that it was the sole discretion of the Chai-rman NAB whether a cas€ of.orruption u.as to bc Frffecded \^'ith undcr the NAO and if not left to be dcalt 14iih under other corruption related la\^,s. [n the cage of offentes under the ATA no single person has ani'disaretion whelher an of{cnse is tried under the Al.A or

i31

the ordinary- law. fhe only issue is whcther as a matter oF law based on the facts and circumstanccs of thc particular cases the oflense in question inlls ivithir the puffiew/meet! the ingredienLs of being an olfense under the ATA If it does then the offense will proceed undcr the ATA whercas if it does nol it rvill proceed unde. anl oiher appli(rable law

53.lt is apparent from ttu delinition ol terorism in 5.6 ATA as reprodu(cd above that the offenser mentioned irr 5.6 (2) also in sonre r:ases fall undel trther laws llor^,evcr it is only when such olfenscs have thc additionrl requircmelt oI design dnd intent as mentioned irr 5.6 (1) (b) and (() lhat they will fall within the purview oI the ATA and r,r'ill br deci(lcd bv the ATC cnurts and as such, althouBh this point is not i]l issue in this case, this additional rcquilement in our view iustiJics the higher sentence which may be awarded in such cases and alsD the dcnial ol renrission as an additional mcns rea is requiled t,hich elcvates the rrime to onc of the most heinous known to any civilized societv whercb! inno(cnt civilians lxing nren, wonen and even )onn8 (hildren are deliberately and intentionall_v_ targeted ! ,ith the intent to causc a d spread terror within the state. the fact that therc are tr^ o possible mens reii required in lerms of either 6 (1) (b) oI (c) we consider tu be in(onse.quential

5,1 lhe nert issuc, i our vicr', is n'hcther h) den] renission in tL'rr(lrisn c.rses iailin2i under the AIA is in vi(raiion of Arti.le 25 r)f thc Constitution lDvi^g distinguished the casc of S.10 (d) NAO rvhen lbr nrany other criminal offenses remission is alloi,r'cd Namell., thdt il otdpr to ntukc A classificstion rcosonablc, it shot ld bp based or an int?ltigilrl? iilfcrortta u'hich dr.efin8lJrsir.s y'e6o s or things that alc gro ped togethet /ron those uho h&oe I'een left out; nNI (b) that thc di/ferentia fiust haoe rational fiBus to th" obiect sotrght to bc ochieted bv su(:h cl'rssificatlo (as per Sherwani's case (Supra) qnd that such .liscriminatiofl is ot itbitrary

55.ln this respect it is of assistance to consider apart Irom the Prison l Rules (rvl1ich are excluded liom the AIA in tcnn ol remission) thc poli.y

I

llr

l.ro

56.This is found rn the p()ticv framed by the Covcmment of Pakistan, luinistry of Inte or in August 2009 in consonance with tlrc iudgftent in the c,1!ie of Shah Hussain V State (Pl-D 2009 SC 460) whereby a iarger benr:h of the Hon'ble Supreme (ourt held that it rvas u[constitutional not to allow remi-ssions to under lrial pri6onerg for the period they had spent in iail once they were convicted. For ease oI refercn.c these guidelines are set out as undcrj

"If o57 I,\{,\.r_D/4 Tr No L) 2/922009"D5 (Atnnt.)

C.1,l:r ntfit o[ Puk,sla Mtnistry of lfihflo.

lslnrnhil, ttu A Srsl. 100':)

Mehi Mnlik Khnttnk, L)elut! Se(:retd'rt Latr,

I

'the Rc|istrnr, S lt/entc l-autl ol Ptkislan,

r; I? 4 () roN , () coN! Ia? s.

L). / str,

Kotdly ftIn to A,lditionul Proscculot (Jerrcrn! Prtli\b leltc/ dah l 28-7 2009l"t t ? \ubtpit notprl fll1iy.

)- Thp Pt$idc l has, h eterttx ol hts lto.trr, afidl'r Atti.le 45 of lh? LontlitttltL'|1, grankl speciul retlission i s.tlhltlc{s ofi Ltsptci)us oLtnsiotts oI Etdni a d Pnki\lo nnd l|defrulcfite Dnls. Ilo 'eler, nt tfu Fust s1t(L'inl nuissio unfur ArL.h. 45 ol th? Co slituhotl h\tl bccn E/, lcd dl libcral s1al.. lrt ont cisc, rcfl$stoti ol 7/51h serlhtn&: u,us npprott?i il ofi? So hi.h in r'as? ol lilels ,t tafil 5 llcars rcfitssto . The durntiott ol ror,issio, r,f *nl(nres 7 .n! nlsa nftu'nied ntbtritil! titit 2. i ar 6 nrc ths to t, ?.:ltt1r

3 1n 1002, thp llEn Gol.atn '.'nf keeptns itL ?it:r, th _flRctroltig i$rr.In) ery beltui,ia t t ri g Llifltrcnt Vcrts iD{lcl Mntislry o.l lut.nor to forirntlalt,a pol .tt httilnte llLe discrrlin . Ac rdi gly, thc llol itl cofis ttatiofl u,ith Lqtlt arl lustie Ditisiotr nrtd Chief l,/sticc of Pakista a d uith the ap!rct)al of thc Prcsirlckt foruulated lhe poli:! rc'I,prisitt9 ol gui.leli es an.l remissit s ds l/

:e

r .1 I

<)ridtli,tr n. The Fftsl,1l rcstncliw poliay tiy ctDttiue. Those pho ittdtlge in heinous cines shoulil not betulit hofi these rcrfiissions, (holl 1,, sol.rr,n or.asions on kl (h lhis rentisrion tfidy lt grntlled shoull he tpedfed nhrl tltt? shouli be no dtfintrc lro that Such rcmisrnns fiiy lr'. tnt'dricl on l'oltr (t.ctlsio s tlttfifiS a t,?ar i,., t:d' ul-tit/, Eid Mltul tut Ndhi, 23ri L4nrL'h a,1 l4th Atgust.

r. M.rctl pehhtl,ts tlg,totsl dealh slrlttfi(e nfiy h. dpnll oi l on inltliilutl btsis url lher should fu no generol clenrnr y. d. Ott.rcrotthng l,|ils shouli not bc (afistden\l n i'nlid gtorfid li spetiil rentisstoris. The i,t,l$ctu itde Frtulrcr t lhp ltrsl has nl ti,l,t:s c courdgel crintes, .touitng th. j ils littlkr sltbselue l)t.

t Fedetu! a d Ptottnt|ial Cooern t? ts ny co li ue to c)ierd* lhetr fouet under thc Pakistnn Penal Codeflhe Codt of Ctmnil Ptoccdurendkrclan Pr.sott Rulps 1978 i ext:n'tst af lhetr besl i dxnpnt thal gerlriplv ret)efihu|l flnd o.rasto al ./i fuals, uln drt rtclim (tcir.un$lanes, hentfl nrcre Jron tlts? rc/nLssiofis. Refiisgion

Syrrnl renssi'n n[ \)0 lat5 ta i/rr prrsorrr'rs totu'itldl ,tnr ltii' i yiso ktt l erc?pt tht)sc tonoi.tcl /or fiurleL espiofitlg?. ifiti-Stat( n(liatities, seclari?rtris,,t, Zitti (Sec.10 Olfe rc ol Zi i (F,ttfotcprneit of llrdood) orilindnce, 1979 (dlro undcr se., 377, P.P.C,), robl'try (,sec. 394, P.P.C.), ittcoity (See J95-396 PPC), kidnappitt!/abdntit (Sec. 1b4-A a d 365-4), intl tpttorist /xtts (as dcfi 'tei in the A ti-fertoristn (Second Afiefiifiet l) Ordha cc, 1999 lNo, xlll tt 1999), (bolt !!ddrn).

Sp?.nl rcfitission lor 15 dorls h) all olhet.o t'i! ls cxcept thc co det fie.l friso,tus and nlso cxepl thosc cttltided tt trurd?L clpiorn:lc, subrersion, ittti-State /,rtil,ities, t?rro sl , tt (ns defined i, th. Alri-I?rrorisrn (Seco l Anrcndrlctt) ()/ih, ce, l9ll9 (No.XIll of 1999), Zn $er. 10 olfotce of Zin (En.force r? t of Hudood) Ordi atuL1979 (tilso undet Scc- 377 PPC), kidrnp|'i g/abductiott (Se..364-A ah.l 365-A); toltlrery (Scc. 394, P.P.C.), dacoittt 6cc. 395-39t, P.P,C.), arul thos? n der$oiflg sefilen.es dpt the Foteig e$ Art, 1 946.(bold addc.l) Sperial ntatssurt nl s h-lnrns. i ti Rb{t,t ttll ltc mlnsstbLt prnt ctt lhit //l. rlr,/)/.ls ll,..l undcrgorc 2ftr,1 t)f lhrn subshrttitt sptte c! of intprisantnl.

Talnl rcnistiio to t nL pris(nars l.Nho nrc 65 ycars of tgt u rbor:r, nnl ltnl,? u derso r tl lulsl 1/iftl al theit sul,sltnlir stutt .L o.[ tnl]nso,t k'nl, t\.lll lhose i t:olud in .ulltnl ?

Toltl rcnisston to linLik prisn,l rs itlru aft h0 vl.rrrs of nB. t)r al'olr" t1 t1 hnl ut..y'.ergont tl ltsl 1/3nl ni lhttt s? h1(e r.f i \)risonnk',llar..pl lltls. im,ilwd in ttlpfib h,tu tit Sl]?,:inl t t1\stLttt t)J otn Vcilt tn _li' 1lt prtson(n lN hatt. uttuiryM\ilS chldrrx and iru J1rt\,19 \ct1tr,fitc o,t inqlnso .e']l fl)r .rn .s olht tlnn lpflbk ha i' id..

't0

I LtA

Tolal rcnissio ta tu't'/, tlr .o,ll,il\ At dtr 18 Wdr\ ri ile) itho lnu' serrtci I/Jrt of lh r t btlnnl,ltt, s. l.rl.t' cxccllt those itt\tlt'ed in rulyoble ho icide, turorist nct, ds dtfined h th? Anti 'lenorisr (Seco d A,npndment) Otdi,tane, 1999 (No. Xlll o11999), 7,ina (Sec. 10 Olfene of Zinu (E ft'rcet ctlt of Hudool) Ofiliflorte, 1979 ktlso I ulicr scctiolt 377, P.P.C.) tobberu (Sec. 394, P.P.C.), dacoilv (Secl. J95-i96, |t.P.C,), - kitltnppitrg/ultduction (Scc. 364-A and 365-A) onil anti-Stott' ,r.-liliti?r.(bold .rdded)

oiii. I hos? co fi.h\l t inscs ptoessed hV NALI (ill nol br rtltitlrl b Vn rtntssiotl. INB os alrcudy ttotc.l in tllis iudtrn? t this (sub clausc (.iiii) is no lo get applicable harifig ben struck do t by the Hon'ble S prehe Cortt) 4.sitLc. the,t lb oht)Itz loltcll has het tnlorced HouVt,et, in 2007. ()n lhc dirc.tio af]rcnortil'le Si dh HiXh tL1llrl ptari\to s rcEarlnt| ttntss itt I tb ?dftt f iii dhot't 1rcr. lcleh'i.

Yours _fitlh.l llu, (Mthi/ Mrlik Khnth*) lhputy SeLftlurv Telc:9203851'

51 Whrther this pL,li.1 is in vrolati()n of Art(l!' :5 ,r1 tllC Lon\litutir)n in tr'rrls uf Sherwani's case (5uprd) Ir.rs in,,ur r rer't,ren rnsrrert rl t v thc Hon blc Srrtlremc Court in thr tasr, ol Nazar Hussain (S1,prr).rt l'1037 Ir.,r.r'r li.r,rd 26 whirh.rrr sct out br.lLrn tor tasi,,,f "25. Tfu tnoll point ot,slnl H.lssillr's oria (skru) .l].tas lhc iutlgDk'il of lhe HiBh Court t|hcrttn cerlni cofiltit:tshrtsoipts lhough Slanlll lhe be ?fll o.f sacl;ofi 38? B, C|.P.C, b l r\re rehtscl ft lsia s.fir lhe ltenorl pretelrng thcir late ol cor'.i.nLt . [Th. ttlgh Court lnd rrlftil or I lulgtn.fil of lhis Courl i Haji Al).htl Alit'. lhil E$nlilluh (PI.D 2005.sC I6J)/. flris Co rt in shah Hussain (supra) cdse p.tttly ?rlilolscd lhe policlt .tfid the classilicatlon ,tiilc thetei irrsofar ns it tl,as backc.l bv lau by obsetllittg, "Ho1lJeter the sanr (t. tissio s) shdll not be atdiloble to the cttfir)icts o.l oJlcfices undet thc Natio al Arcoufilabilitu Bureau ()ilifin cc, 1999, Aiti:l'cftorisn Act, 1997, thc oflen& ol Knto Kati, elc., ohere the larr its.lf y/oltibits that," ll (\1s fiol h ughl lo thc nohtr ol lhis Ca|rt i,l Shlh Hllrsni,r s.nsc (PLD 2009 SC 460) lhnl lttlit)n 10kl) o.f lht: NAB Otlifin .e hatl be. tlitclnrcd ulltn dres bt n .ft.tll Ben|h af tht Rnrn.hi lligh Co t |PLD lAAl Kat 139). 50 tllc obscnldlfin nnfu qud ihalusior !l'c0 t'itts ttfut lli. NAB Oldinn .t li. lrcal?.1 us ppr itkuri . t,1 tct ts of Il1( poli(l! hluned by lh. Mltlistrt of l te or, Concttlnte l oJ Pal\isl,i , ttrhutl yrnntcters/gudeloks l]l]t bean laid doton Jor lhe gtnnl ol rcnissi.,Is t der Athclt 45 of lhe CL! stitutiotl. A class of conoicts/priso crs

.L

ll

tLtS

haltc becfi cttlutlcd t\ho aft a((tscd of "hei ors o.ffcices" in lhc ,rt lofngrdph if "tc,rtissions" 01 lhc loll letler teltodurt'il trl firngril t 14 iboltc. The a\fi?ssiott "hairtuus o.flcntcs" h.ts Iurther becfi claborctcd ilt thc stueeilittg Para i.?. that sttch re,nissiott u)oulal b? aTrIillnbh lo lhosc lrtisonerlt ctlrtrtiateil .fot lilr inry sot,nettl cxcept thosa .oiTti.ted /or nfird.t, espiortisq I i ti-Slate oclittitit's, scctaria is l, Ztua (s.c. 10 Oflence ot ZinA (E forccnerrt of Hulood) ordindncc,l9T! (alto ttkler 5e. 377, P.P.C.), robl)erv (1cc. 394, P.l'.C.), tldcoitv lsac 39\'396. P.P.C,). Lid,u.ppittg,/ tbdu.tio lSet.364-A and 365-A), n,ld t.ftotist arts itls d{iied in th( A ti-Trrroris t (ScN d Ar e dt cfit) ()rdi a, t, 1999 (No. Xlll ttf 19991). A nnQlvsis o-f the forc rcfefied e*lusit ts atul th? cl,rssi.li,otio,t u'ottld shou' thnl th. si.,ta nrc lrds?rl o,t ftaso ibl. diffcre,ttia itd it is nrither ituli iiual ipc(ilic ltot atbittary. fhe cLdssili tion tadc tt,td de iol o.f retnissiofis to n class ol conr'irts/yrisorrcts is eilhcrb .kc.l by Inn' ot r|l? or therc is s obiecfite ctitctiotl. A br.nkup oI th? ildssilicitilr , the htat or rules uhich uay L'dck this .lassilicgtiofi ol the alule ofhttinous essolofle ce is .gil,cx aslollofl,s ;(bold added)

slliotl,rgt', ) le 214-A of lllc Ptisofis Rules ntndul l)lk' ,s: 214 A.-No prrso tlt(' is 'on?icltd for $lo nge at n lt Slah cti|itias shall hc . lilletl to Ltlour! Dt pe.ial renisslon urlessotlrr :bc diretl l IItt Ph.,t'it .'inl Cn,..rtt lcttI ff. R.r,issil),, Not.r,illtstrrrtdirr8 vthi g{o tai edittutt!kn!'ot ittr rule fot thc tine being ir force, r.missio,l ifi.rnv tit:ittnrc shnll be llo ,.i to perso,t tt,ho is tLrt,l,i(tel d selte .etl for a ! o.fte*t uttder bolti ad,1cJ I !&\ 10(3) ot L)ll.nt t' ol Zt t I Lnlbrcornt ol lluloorl) l)nhmnt.

9it). ThLtugh lhis ptat\stott ltus iue tl trt|nltl (bv Att t/'l nl )00t ). 1'rt n

I

iniln protisto hns hktl tfisatled hrough seclons 375 tttt 376 i,t P.P L. It

coily (,ec 395- ?sc dfi h?iltous ofl-.,,tcr - 9e, PPta iifirppin!

I

1F.Il?tttissit . - Noltuithstafi,lli g t' .t. fiVthi g roltiitt?d i rtv htl!, ot i risLt Rukf<,r th! ti,,c bti'tq i forcP, n rc1fii!sitr, itt ttt,V stfitt'tue shdll b?

llotced to pt/so toho is co t'icled

I

1rl \cnt.lc?tt lot afiy L'_ffcnc ndet

I L

_ l,ris Al.r.(hold addcli)

iqq

26.The aforc-tefetrci chdtl ittalicates thdt tlte polic! o_f refiissions r ier cofisiietdtion is netther .ttbitrury ,tor iiscrifiinntory ortd is rdthcr bnsed on n ihtelligible liff.rc tia tohich is \tennissible and is t,ft/eforc, uot tioldtitt? of Arti.lr 25 of the Co stitutio an.l thc lau lnid doaj bv this Co rt".(bold dclded)"

58.The above policy remains in force as of todav B'ithout an]' altorati0ns ()r additions.

59.We are in lull aSrecment witrr the abovc findings of the Hon'ble Supreme court in thc case of Nazar Hussain (Supra) in findrng that 5.21 ! A1 A does not v iola te Articie 25 of the Constitu tir)n

60.lt may he recalled thit even in Shcrwani's case (Supra) il laid d o\a'n thc folao.r,irrg prirrciples ulilh regard to e4ual Wotection of lau drul reaso ablcre.s of (kssifi$ti([t it (iii):

(iii)lht diftteil lutL's tan t'tlully lk tldt lor dil'nnl s(\s, pe'tons in dlletn! age grauf's, puso,6 hatitg lilfent,tt linnnduL statulittgs, .tfiil persobs accused oJ helnous cirncs;

61.lt is clear that in (len!in8 renrissi.x$ to a celtain category of offenscs these are regarded as heinous ur as a(ts a8ainst the state. l'herc .an Lre no doubt, in our !,i.rr, that acts of lerrorisnr are heinous offenses .is indicated hy thc prcanlbic k' tlrc Al A whieh reatls as untler:

" ACT NO.XXVII Or 1997 An Act to provide for the prcvention of t€rrorism, se(tarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offen.es, Whereas it is exp€dicnt to l)rovide for thc prcvcntion of terrorism sectarian violence an(l ftx spcetly trial oI heinous offen(es and lbr Dratt.rs ('onnccted therclvith aid incidental thrreto, "

62.ln Saleem Raza's case (Supra) it was .1lso notcd tlut anothl'r test for pcrmissible classiiicalion is that th!'differcntia must havc rah(,nal ncxus hr thc obrect sought lo be arhieved by snch classiriraiion at P.17{) l'ara 30 in the followin,l tcrms,

Aiothq tcst fot pen issible classi/ication i5 that thc diflefttrtia fist hntre r tiondl ncxts to thr ol,iect sought ttt bP achieoed by suth classifiution, Fot this lrutposc the objei o/ th? Iau cr?ating diffctcfltia is to be cranh l. As nghllu stdled bll lht 1.,r,,,e,/ n /,.t;.C. th nt'.trtt t l rr\nse,r/, rr,r, rr[5 \,,18 tttlitttut t,

lqi ,tol h kecp lle ac st.l letsll,rts it t:ustoly fot lon#/ periols b l lhc nat pury)ost is lo rp&l:tr the ottlsta/dl g nhoittts Nld sfile nrct?! nisnlpropriatud by lhe p?$ot15 p^lse,rtetl- 77tP entirc s(h t of Plea bttguDt, po\er to frcezp. tlu ltoYrly, holdi S lh? lrDlslb a.f PtoPctty r)r1ti, utllu laty fthtm, ,.onslihtian of A\rcilittion Contrtillces lbr l1nlmn1t ol lL\Dls, rclerc ce of tht cf.scs lo lht Coytnor SlaL( B@tk of ntk.totl tljd ti ot ttt\1fi)t'Ll of Stnlc Bink, nft din:cl in lhis L,elnll l'he Hon'ltle Suprnt Court ulrl( cM tt| tnriou:t ptcrrstotts of tllt NAB ordn nrce in lht .]xse oJ Khafl As/afidydt W ti n, le.leratiort o.f Pakistan PLD 2001 S.C. b07. tPld lhat o ? of lhr prryosa' and ot\et L)f lhr lne uus ht reL]o,tr the l-sottcn .(tP!|. This obie.ct oI thP lau, has no nex s ujitll the lassift.atiott pleodei by the leaued D.A,G. undu sacti(r 70(d) of the NAB Oilit ane "

-lhus, t3. there is no doubt in our minds that the denial of remi$si('I\ ilr .ases undcr ATA is in conlormity with the obiect and PurPoses of the ATA vr'hi(:h t'reamblr $'as sei out earlicr and which is b gil'e no con(ession ki those Pers()ns who aommit heinous offense6 *'hich strike at the verv k)undations of the Stat€. A reatling ot the ATA in its totality shows that in eitect its Pii]narY obic.tive is puniiive and io act as a deterrent to thosc $'hr) (oDtmit hcinous (rirnes 35 qpposecl to the NAO which.'tlthough penal ir &rturc its prinlarl'r)biect is the lecovcrY oi loi)tell monc,v of the State which is illusirated ty ihe no\,cl provisrons of v(runtary* retum and plea bargain llhich are iound m the NAO wh€re th€ accused can bc released if i'r cffect he returns the l()oted money whjch provisiuls still apply alter conviction for an oflense undcr the NAO rvhi.h iacilitates a(rused/convrcts early release on that basis. Perhaps k' a .erLiin e\tcnt this legislati()n is refumratil'e since usually a volrrntarl relurn anll a plea b.lrgain is ullY allowed in addition to the return oi thc plurldered moncy if the accueed/convict admile his Suilt .nd under takes not to e.tgage in criminal activities in the future.

b.1. I he fa.t that oflenses ol t(rlurism ar€ heinous is also showrl b)' the f.(t that thel require a specific/special intent in addilion to tlle usual clcments ol a crimii.ll oflense beirg thc actus reus and mens rea. Beforc an act.an fill w'ithin the Pun-iew of drc ATA not only do vou have lo h.1\'c commiit€rl the actus leus and have thc n'lens rea for the oliense undcr 5.6 (2)but you also need to t1avc the additional intent undcr S 6 (l ) (b) arrd (t) as under,

(a)"the use or threat is desitned to (oer(e and intimidate or overawe the Govet menl or the Public or a sectior of the pubti( .,r conwunily or secl or d foreitn tovernment orl

lLlL

population ot an inlernational orgnnizdtion or.rcate r scnse of fear or insecurity in so.ielv; or

(blthe use or thrcit is made for the purpose of advancing a rcligious, se(tariin or elhni( callse or inlimidating and t€rrorizing th€ publi(, so.ial sc(tors, inedia personq, ['llsin€ss communily or attarkinE the civiliins including danragirrg properly by rirrsnck;ng, lootin& arsor or by any other means, government ofticials, installntions, seclrrily forces or law enforcenrent ag,errcies" (L.dcl addcd)

65 In essencc olfenscs of tcrrorism lhrough barbarous/ heinous acts have the design and intent in effe(t of destabilizing the State which offenscs are of ihe most heinous nature at th€ nationai level o[ anv nation

66.As discussed earlior it is this requiremcnt of spe.ial/sperilic interrt in addition to the usual actus rcus and mens rea of nrurcler vr,hich learls to the ctime of crimes known as genr:cide. Murdering a largc nunrbcr of pcoplc \,,,ill not amount to the olfense of genffide (although it may amourt lo cxternrination or mass murder) unless anv of the follorring a( ls .rre !(,n litt€d h,ith int€nt to deshoy, in whole or in p.rt, a nntional, elhnical, racial {rr relidous group, as such: (a) Killinu rnembert ol the group, (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to menrbcrs of thc group; (c) Deliberatcly infliciing ()Ir thc gr(,uP (on(iitjons ol life calculate(l t{) bring about its physical .icstruction in latolc.)r rn parl, (d) Iflposin}i nlcasures intended to l)rcYent birtiN within the g(rup; (e) lorcibl\' transk,rring children of tlre Broup to another liroup.(Article Il Convention on the I'revention and Punishnrent of the Crime of Cenocide Approv.d and l)roposed tor signature dlrd ratifiration or ac.essnrn by Cclleral Assembly resolution 2{,0 A (lli) of 9 Dccemt,er 19.18 Entrv inlo forc!: 12 Jdnu.lrv lrr51, in a(.ordan .r with arti.le XIll))

67.Such crimirral offenses rvl .h in addition to the usual re.luirement o[ a( tus r€us an.i mens rea a]so require specifi{epecial intent (as with offerses undcl the ATA) are usualll conJincd tr) the mosl heinous of crimes llu(h as terroism and genmjdc sin(e there is i nre(i to providc an additional specifig/spe.ial intent which is usualll, ol a ver! hcinous nature and srrch acts are often caried out with the specific/sl)ecial interl of c{cstabilizing a Stale or trying to elinrinate a certain class of pcople and as such lcgrslaturcs ln thrrr wr\Jom md) wdnr to imlnsc tl_e hrghest/ s .i)

/Lr-1

pcnalties and restri(tion5 on thc perpetrators of such acts as a (ietcrrcnt to {rlhcIs.

68.Even in Saleem llaza's (ase (Supra) which &as approved by the SuprenF court in Mazhar lftikha/s (ase (Supra) it accepted that certain offensL's for which remission had betn cxcltrdetl rvere based on a reasonable classilication based on intelligible differcntia was available b.sed on the:'uture ol the oliense su(h as Karo Kari, Siah Kari or slmilar ()ther cust(rnN an.l plactice.s, Espionage and other Anti State,Activities cven if in some of these cases remission can be granted with the permi$.sion oI the Federal or Pro\ incial C.overnment.

69.lve are further fortified in our vici+- that the heinousness oi the o[fen-r€ under the ATA is based on an intelligible cliffer.ntia which is permissible by considering some Indian cas€ lah on this poini.

r'0 ln the case of stnte of Haryana and Anothet v, Jai Sinth dated 17-O2-2003 (SC India)dlndian Kanoun hltpi/indiaknnoon,or&/doy'l84l133/ where thc lndian suprcmc court also considcred $'hptht,r denving rcmission for those c{)nvicted ft)r heinous .rim.ls was discrinrinatofl and violated Article l4 and 2l ot tlle lndian C(,nstitution (similar to Arti.le 4 an(l 25 ol our constitution) it was held ds under,

''W'a uill lrsl l,1l\? ltlt l.,t .onsuk lton lh? ntsu ,enl (.tt'h'tl bu thr I ltgh CLturI nt the imytttltlctl tud$n]rnl lhat lht' nnltuit,\l .ldssili.ntiL'n is nrhilrnry, uflrcaso nl'lt, onn tthl. of Artrl. 14 i,f th to slih utt. lvhik considering llr th le ge basetl o Attiltl4 as lc1 lh? drhtnnnr'ss u lhe ntryutnr.d alnssifrlrllon, the taurt has lo txtltrtine ulelh?t lhe n pugned clissifcntian snl$l\ei cerl t to slilultofial n Duliles or nol. Thy arc (i) lhal lhe .lissifrcnlion ,ttutt be touttdcd on d nttelliiihk' dtferclltttt ttllch listiniutshls fosons ot lhittgs lhnt uft Srouped lo8(llkr fron t)Ihcrs leJl ott of the &/oup; 0i) thnl thc lli[lrc h,t nt\t lnlt n mtit'nal ftldtionshi, ,ilh lhe obircls s!' Nhl to be n.hicl'ed h! tlE Act. (.S.? (rrrlrr Ra,l,r8 Ralrrl I ! The Slote nf Siurisllrit /1952 -sCR '13,5 ii.

ln lhe tnsn n .nse, tl1? Slalc L;a:, rt11.11l utdar tlp tt,]prqr?l )tot\i.ation Sm,ltpd tfu betlcfl of rtn5snn k' all .on|'kt\ ltccPl lho:,t .ttltlipl it lhr sn l nltifrotion Though tln ,rlilittttiott it1+Gstion dD.s ,tol gite unv syccific rcasott lrtr ttcluxon ol such contvls, ton ll*: plcnrliryi t)l lhc 5t L't;r,i:t:lrtmc t, it is cleat that this e(h6ion ?J'as ilotta bAscil Dn thc nal re of olfefi& cohrfiitled by th" 6nid coflaicls i .l taking into considerutio the effect of such (rlle ce ort th? sociely as also the ifiteSrily of the State. Thc questiofl lhen is urhethpr such classiliratior of .ottt,i s bttsc.l on the aturc of :t6

lLtS

(1.lfrncc corntitittei by tlpm, roulLl be i dtbitnry .ldssificatiot, haritg fio fict s t!.,ith th. oLtjKt o[ tlk Cotlc.

'fhe arcut to tlp suil qu?slitrfi, i our opittio,t, shoxld be i the ,tsgatiL'c, This Cou* in a <'al?nq of decisiofis has rccogrtizeil that thc grsttity of an offerKe nl thc quafitutt of setttcficc ycscribed irl thc Corle coulil be a rcaso able blasis for a classi/icatior, 'l'his Cot,rl t,t Sttrle ol Harya n & Ar! V. Mohi ict si,t9h ttc. 12000 B) SCC 391) hcld " Pisoners hm'e tN nbs(tl te nthl for r.nssiott of spetnl lct isstofi shnll twl apply la .ri\uvr tr./.'r)rlei ofi pnrhdtlnr affatrct .nt ccttsinly hr n rclet)aitl cafi iernlion litt lh? Sful!: Gln,prnt t\rl ol li t\.r.ts. Fcltl.r tt.f renrssrctn in thul Ltrt " (t, l)lt iis r,rlryliiLl) l Mnruatc.rlc.I Unton Ltf l d t ta Ant.{1981 al) S(R l,.rd), THIS La|tt tl|b n'ylliitg a'l nrgt tul ol tliscti hlil\ttl nt regnrd lo llls sttttt .( lo bt iktlosed it1 n trtur t ]st\, hrli:

"l/r. losr. rs ltltkl althorsh rs ,rsdorr, i, ttu liiht rl tm no9i.rl lhorshl. ts open lo douli.lv. hnl'. cnrlier stated lfu wrun?h\t ol fulklnl teslrutd iri, os nl presutl ndl.|sttt, u'? are not s.ttisfied that the classtficatioi is base.l ofi at iftstional diLlercntin unrclate.l to thc pflttittu? end ol so.inl eFn p.94lie it lo sny herc, lh( cl ssifr.ation, tf due resp(I h, Parliunp l'r rh]/|e is gioen ci ol be cnsligtled as a ,]Jlltidlnls nouglt lti ttlr l lb blhnl .onseque c4 of Atl 13 redd :d ith Arl 14."

l 5u il Boln !. Dclht Adltouslratnn ta Orc (AIR 1978 5C l€,75). thls Coutt uphel.l the oali.lity o/ a (lassi/ication bused on the grutity ol thc offe ce.

l'rot the abo1rc obstn tit"ts if this Coult, it is .lc thnt the Xraf it\ tt lhe offcnt't' rtu fnrn lhe bosis ol a oahd classificition if th! obie.t of suth tl|lssiliratio is lo gflnt ('t ,tltt to gttlnt //,n'rrrs.or,rf b thr co .lrstort thnl the grn'itv rl tD t,ll rrtnnl'?tht lusts for t z, iil clnssi.fir lk t. u:{ rll nol L:i |tur .ilk'llk't lht ._ll;',ljts tttlutlcd fion th. inrrynul t.ltifirut./jtt ttt b( sLlrl to lr su':h oJ.lcnccs u,ltulr hn'e b.e u:ro Xlv t\thubd fua lhc hottlll ol rcn$siot We ,ntice thnt the co oicts tLito hit,a bccn ctcludel Jtofit lhe hprcfit of soid otlficatio , arc those couiicts ttho hat,e bec s?fitened Jor o.ftorces o/ rape, dotorv deolh, ahihtctio and nurner uf t child b"lou''14 lsan, offenc?s rctflir,lt undct Spctittne l2l 10130 IPC, A.u oitv, robbcry, clr, Thcsc dr. lhe offences for u*ich thc Cod(, has pfts(riben *, sefllercp ol rilaolo s i tpriso rlcfit cxtcfidi g lito lif., therefore, frcfi the ??rv ,ttttrc of the renterrc? 'hich the offitt( e tails, the sd l ojf? cas cafi be cdlt'tori.el s gtsre olJ'c,t.?s, thcft,forc, th.v n bc aptlu tlassifi?d s Xt rc offtru'?s, nthich classification .rill be o utlid <klss{ication lor the pnrpose o[ l(tiitlg 1oh?tht lhe fpftois 'ho ht te .o tfiitted such olle ces slto ld be grdited ret|issir or iot. O thts bas$, lt|, nrc ol the nllitti,t lhdl Llr SlnL' ( i1l\,ntnh\ l hrrt /9 dedded ot lo Sn tl tat tsstoll k, th*'otf drc/ofle tts u]tirh carrq life i,apnsa tl\tl, shot]i ol be Sn th t rpnis.nJn, is l|\ItJtal h lan| so.

Shnilarlu, the of/erlc* uruler the NI)PS and the TAI)A A.ts, apatt Iror catrying heaoy pennl sentences are olfe ces .Lthi.h cotld be l?t\Ed at nlfcn.t\ hduiflg spri us adupr.c cfJp.t o the society, 1l

IQ\

t:ogflizartrc oI lltich is ftEtired to b. tak bll tht Stat? whilc g; |]ng rcrnissior, lhetefore, tfuy can uLso bc cldssified 6 offenccs iohi,'!r shoul,l be k.pt out o.f the luflicui ol tettissiolt". (boll add?d)

71.'IADA is the terrorist and DisruPti!'e Activities (Prevcniion) Act which romained in [or(P in lnttia from 1985 to 1995 k) deal rv;lh a partlcular internal insur,lencl inrl ri$ing k'rrorism and cven slnrrc ol lts provisions werr: regartled as draconian and contrary tQ hunrall rights a[!l the NDI€ is the Narcotic Drugs .rnd substan(es Act 1985 uflder lndian law rvhich Statutes w€re resPectivclv ena(tcd to Prel'ent tcrr('rlsm aml dealings in narcotic slrbstalces in India like thP ATA anJ the Colitrol o[ Narcotic Substances Act 1997;n I'akistar

i?. In the ln.lian (ase of Jameel Ahmed v. State of Raiasthan and Othe$ datcd 01-m-2007 ):(lndinn Kanoon b!!!li!d!E!a4as!4!4it /)%40W bcfore the Raiasthan lliSh (ourt it rtas held as under when de.llin8 leiih thc rvithholding of renlission k) ccrtain categories ol convi(ts,

" Rentission ,rni! Forole are not r,e\tril rishts of thc frisott'rs' I latt, lllcv nrc pritileger gftt tei b1l the Stnte lo th( con?ict?l 1tisorurs. Thcreftrc, Lt tr,trictrd Ptisoncr l\tttttot cl/r.ihr tllcsP ttro lrtkilegcs as th.i restdl tiihts. lunsfudr ltulLy, th{r i; r lil]irc rt: I'th|ettt rtlht nt ll1t)tlcl(. Rights are classilied nfidcr ttLto cntcsories of either b rtg n furlilafletttal right ttttet the ()'1 thc Cotrititntiou, ol o stnt tont tiSht grn led bv o Stalute othu hafid, a ltioibg? is ttfit,rted blt tha Stale fidct t?rttti'i tolilitio s dfiil Ptitltcy bV thcir lerv atur? ta e.ltt llV be takett att:nu bv the Stdt.. lNhcrcas ti9hts it? uttitcrsul in ,utttte, pri.,itrycs .n bc Biar'n lo certah specific gtotPs attd rEcd ttot n?tcss..rilV b( uttil,Ptsal itt its nlPlicntiort. fulr'l9\ir Mtl l le nn I t oJ ltu t.titntfltil\' tlLron/ of lun\hn|Ittl !,lt.! lh(l nft f'tif il'lt\ Pnsa r^ ...nti',Lt,!i gru ltd bv th. Snrt,'. il rs nol tt.ssatl lhilt ll lfu Dtttsl hall( lht /)rri,ilr.g( .rtPnd{rl lo lltitn. C"rtditt ctleg('rias oJ prisnrtcts rn b( ,4 sflt thcs. pririltgts. ht tuts. tle ftt$al t' bdscl o h ittig. l tt,llPi tia, il h,ts,t 'tcxus ltt lh" L'bi& t oI lhc Rulcs, thc rel sel is ot riolatiltP or Arlirle 74 o/ the Co,tstitutiot' of lrrdia Shre o prititegP cat fu denicd ttr l.tr lhe htut, it i5 lrceiure .stohlishe.l Lty liw, thetefore, such i /lenial u'otld ttol be 'oiolutioe ol A icle 21 oJ thc Cor16titulion oI lrtdin. Ll doubl.dlll, lh' licelala ol t,lct\r ettt rc L rLbl,ttt c,Ll,ne,l anl conli,El bV llr t' tt t1'l ol rrrrflso,,rxs r ltrisontr. Tturtfurq the Pusont liLl"rlv is (titnild bv pd, til ori tur n l1tuce,l rc ?rtnhlisht,l bv ll:Ittt ll ts tt ]1olit y dlltsrcn t)f ltu Slnh, lo d\tdr tha Lnt$o/)t dl ltisnntr. 1t'ho nft .rlilltul Lo lht ]initi| gr pj |rhti.sto n l Nrolc I thost 'ln nn dis!ttltll..l lir s ,,h n ll 'ilqe. Consiiein| ltu lacl that IADA tLtos o htu endcted for the Ilnrftse oI controlling the terlLttisf rtiliticti i ltttliu, cutsidfiing thc / t-t thnl ttfto.lst d(tit'ili-|. shnk( lhc t'cty louttlnlio L'l thcL

/jo fiotio , tofisileti,rs thc I rt thal such al'tit)iti?s ir? a attulk otl th. i,ttcgitv nrtl u itlt ol the tntit1lt, cttsiderhg the[a.t that srch .tctiritit's atttiil the ki?ing ol iultcettt uofle ttni childt.fi, <'o sideriflg the fltct tllut s ch a.tioities post serious thrcat Lo thc suruiaal of the dtio ns a ulholet the Sfal? has iSlltly dePlit)cd lttisofiels rcfiti.tcd unicr rADA of thc prilrilege of rerrtission a d larole i d Opu Canrlt. fhose tL,ho tortsfie ird threat(tt the fitttio do tot ics.mc a,q ercV frcfi lha lr',.]o or fontl the Slote". (bolLl adr,lerl)

71.It also notably observed that the Govemment of Funjab had ex.luded remission in Narcotias rclated cases in the following terms at P.172 Para 36 in Saleem Raza's case (Supra) as ul1deli " Agaii i lhis p.ot,tsiofi llpre is I rcaso nhlc a, rdtion l rlossi.frrilon spectfyng a cbss of ltetso$ and jiil lenL'ttg lh( dscr(Ibn u'ith f*bral ot lh. Prorti .ral C,ol,?nlmul uli tonpelenl nulhorily. A sttfllnl ptot'isio ha', lNe in!/'ttcd try the Punjab G)rcrnmcnt thrcugh Ruk 21+A of tht Pflson Rulcs. Th( Ptoljab (hwrnncltl h'ts .lepri\d all lhp tonrictel p?lsofis for special rcntission ot on Plcnnlurc releas? i Fnrol( tf thpv ale se te&ed for dru&/ arcofits ofenu's lide Honrc Depatlmtnl kttct NI.14/1/93/MP, dnlcd 27.1.1993. Itt this .ase aL<o d tlassific.ttion hcs been mailp t)hich is based on itttclligiblc difJdentio. The ftrrissiofl has not b?en .lcnie.l ott a.rt:ofitrt of merc lontm of trisl but on account ol comnlssiorl of offcntes p?rtalning to druSs anil ar.otlc-. " (ttoltl addctl)

71.Lven in Sherwani's (ase (Supr.i) rvlrt'n tlealng 6'ith PrinciPles regarding cqual protectirnl .1n(l r.lasonablcness of classificatiur it r\,as noted dt (iii) that diff€rent laws can validly be €nacled for Per6on's accuced of heinoug rrinre!.

73.l{e ra,ould also like to observ'e that the lugislature in considering the kird of law whi<h it needs to pass in ordcr to deter such o[fenses like t(,rrorism also needs to coriider the cuncnt environment Prevailing in the country wluch r{as again emph.size(l in Sherwani's case (Supra) whcn enunciating I'rinciples as to.lassifi(ation at O (d) ard (e) as set out below for ease of reference:,

la!

k) lt fit st bc Fftsturrcd tltdt tllf. Legisldtute ufitle$ta ds ani cotrectltt apprccittes the nepis of its otL,,t p2oplc, that its lous arc dhecteil to proble s nade tn.t ifest by experifire, and that its discrit irfitio s are based o ade.lutte groundq ,

ril Q) th. Icgklaturc is hap to tccogiit. the dcgrees o/ httrnt o,d nnv cohlitc its rptlriction to tltuse cns?s ulele lhc esd is de td to b? fh( clPulest:

(() i ord to st6lnin lfu Wpsrnrytiol ll cottslttkliorulihJ, llu' Courl tv lnkt otto to,triltnuott nlteri ol $,,Dtlo ktta l l*', n { n ttte$ ol tl)t ,fiti apo . the history ol the ti rcs at l flutl asswie a7'ery stule of.fttcts tich ca lr. rc (tited cristitttl at tlc tittt? of lc9islatiofi;

76.Pakistan unlikc manr other countries in recent times has bcen grappling with the problem of inienrai terrorism which delilxratc desiSn and intent is to adverscl) elfctt the stability oi the State tkough acts $hi.h undermine the govemment an(l its institutiol$ and create fear and insecurity in the minds of the general public and as such it is the ut, ol irarliamcnt kt respond to such situations by passing the aPProPriate lcgislation in (,rder to protecl thc Statc and its r;tizcns whi.h it h.rs done bv passin8 the ATA. In .cccnt times in (,rdcr to attempl kr.ombat this nrcnal:c of terrorism thc le8islaturc by a two thirds majority evEn anrcnded the ronstitution for a limited Period to allow certain so calied bla.k tcrft,risnr cases to be tricd bI lrrilitary courts. As mentioncd eailier in this judgment Parliament being clected by thc PcoPle anri thereiore rcflccting the will of thc peopk can promulgate anv lcgislation, with anJ sontences and rcstictions, which it dcems n( essary / aPpro pr:a te and thc (('urts will only interf('re rvith the sdnte bl wav (,i interPrctation if thP lcgislahve intent is unclear or if such legislation or Parts thereol are m violation (,f tl1c Constitution which approdch is in cont(,rmit)' wlth thc \()vcreigntr of Irarlianrent and the do(trine o[ the tri(h{,toorv of poll,erc on rvhich our (onstitution is bascd in a I'arliamentary dcmocra(y

77.W{' havc also (leliberately avoided .onsidering kxr man]' rules regardinB remission in most othet countries since in our vicrv each counrr,- through its duly elected legislative body Passes such laws as arc rclevant io its ora'n particular environment and circumstances lx]rtaining in that country. As such we have confined Lrurselvcs to the Indian sull continent ra'hich has alro grappled lvith th. Drcnace of krrorism and is a sinrilar environment to ours to sunre cxtent in terms of social an(l economir' devclopment. For examplc, in s()me countries rvhjch lacc .t lesser threat from terrorism and a lesser thre,rl to their internal stabilitv on a.count ol terrorjsnr al this point in timc not onllr nrig,ht thei Anti z

riz 'Itrronsm laws be much less stdngent than the provisions in the ATA but they may also provide lesser penalties, remission etc lt is for each country to respond to its owrl palticula! challenSes and pass elfective laws in respect oI such challenges tkough its own lcgislatures. Our role in this casp as alludcd to carlier in this iudgment was onlY to consider whether !nder thc Pakistani ATA 1997 thc exclusi{m of remission was in violation of Arti(les 4. 12 l3 and 25 of the Constitution

7A. In nnsw.ering this question for lhc reasons and cliscussion nlentioned above 1ae finll thal Secti{rn 21! ATA 1997 does not violate Arlicles 4, 12, 13 or 25 or ary other Arti.le ol the Constitution and as su.h we uphoid S.21 F ATA with the result that the pctitions stand d;smissed.

79.Belore parting with this judgmcnt howcver we would like to emphasize that since remissiorrs.lre not appli.able iD cases undcr thr Al"A h'hich concem heinous offenscs having a spe.ial obiect nnd intent aimcd at destabilizinS thc Stale and its institutions and cowpring it Iitizens through instilling in them a sen6c of fear anLl insccuritv the Anti 'l'errorism Courts mu6t erercise great care and cautiol in delermining whether thc ca6es before them fall under the ATA based on the rrquirements ot 5.6 and in the absen.e of the intredients of 5.6 (1) [b) and (.) being hade out amount to caoes to be tded nder lhe ordinary criminal lavr. Without belaboring the poirt we set out once agaln below S.{' (1) (t) and (c) ATA which are a pre condition which rleeds n' bc satislietl beiote S. 6 ATA ni8ht be attracted by virtu0 of thc oflen..nrs set L'ut in 5.6(2) ATAI

6.Terrorism- (1) ln this Act, "terrorism" meani the use or threat

(a)the action falls within thc meaniig of suL!.section (2); and (b)the use or thrrat is desitned to coerce and intimidale or ovcrawe the Covernment or the public or a seation of the lrublir or.onrmunity or secl o! a foreign governfient or population or an international organization or crcate a sense of Iear or insecurity in society; or

(c)the use or threal is made fo, the purpose of advdncing a religious, scctarian or eth.rir aause or intimidating and terrorizing the publi(, so(ial sectors, mcdia perso.s. buBincss aommunity or atta(king the civilian$ inaluding t 4t

ls3

dama€iing property by ranHa(king, lootint, arson or by nnv other means, government officials, installations, security for(es or law cnfor.€ment at€ncies. (bold .rdrled) Provided that nothing herein contained shall aplrlv to a democratic arld religi(,us ralll' or a peaceful demo[slration in accordance with la\\r'.

80.We would also likc to place on record our appreciation oI all the learnetl counsel who have appearetl belore us in these pctitjons dnd provided us with their Drost valuable assistance.

81.Thcse petitions stnnd disp()sed of in the above terms.

I]r JL' rt)'tlq tlL,hc E Xrh,"""

JUDGI

\t, l't )a lql

I

-ll