Abstract
The Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) mainly governs the anti-terror legal regime of Pakistan. This paper debates that the definitional part of this statute has certain ambiguities which makes it difficult to determine ambit and scope of this statute. Consequently, the specially mandated Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) have to deal with the question of jurisdiction first and the original trial proceeds later which makes the basic purpose of the ATA i.e. to speedily decide the cases, futile. Even the higher judiciary sometimes issues the ATA-based decisions with weak jurisprudential reasons. This study postulates that only a lucid and detailed legislative amendment can end this overuse of ATA as well as the confusions of jurisdiction and expedite trial proceedings [Ed.].
Highlights
Terrorism, which is one of the most used words of the Twentyfirst Century, has been defined by various national as well as international law practitioners, jurists, law makers, and academics.[1]
The specially mandated Anti-Terrorism Courts (ATCs) have to deal with the question of jurisdiction first and the original trial proceeds later which makes the basic purpose of the ATA i.e. to speedily decide the cases, futile
The Court categorically admitted that the matter which arose in consequence of an incidence of honor killing though could have been dealt under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) it was decided through the application of the provisions of the ATA
Summary
Terrorism, which is one of the most used words of the Twentyfirst Century, has been defined by various national as well as international law practitioners, jurists, law makers, and academics.[1]. This paper argues that the broad definition of ‘terrorism’ given in the ATA makes its aim and scope ambiguous This ambiguity sometimes allows this especially constituted statute, meant to deal with the cases of terrorism, to partly cover the scope of the regular penal law i.e. the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).[6] This overlap usually lets the investigation agencies and parties to considerably complicate the case in such a way that the court grapples with settling the question of jurisdiction first and later it proceeds with the original case. The paper examines the need for special and separate legislation to deal with the acts of terrorism and discusses why the general legislation that deals with the criminal matters cannot take care of such offences as well
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
