Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner, currently confined at Central Prison Rawalpindi, filed a Shariat Petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, claiming it contradicts Islamic injunctions. Additionally, the petitioner sought personal relief, which was deemed outside the jurisdiction of the court. ----Issues: 1- Whether Section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. 2- Whether the denial of remission to prisoners convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act constitutes discrimination under Islamic law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that: --Failure to Provide Specific Islamic References: The petitioner did not provide specific verses or Hadith that directly supported the claim that Section 21-F violates Islamic injunctions. The cited verses emphasized equity and justice but were not directly relevant to the legal issue at hand. --Differential Treatment for Terrorism Convicts: The court found that treating terrorism convicts differently from other criminals is consistent with Islamic law. The severity of terrorism, considered as "mischief on earth" (fasad fil arz), justifies harsher punishments. This differentiation aligns with the Quranic verse (Surah Al-Ma’idah, Verse 33) which prescribes severe penalties for acts of terrorism. --Legislative Authority: The parliament has the authority to enact laws that impose stricter punishments for terrorism to maintain public order and safety. The Anti-Terrorism Act’s provisions, including Section 21-F, were found to be within the bounds of Islamic jurisprudence. ----Citations/Precedents: Verses from the Holy Quran: Surah An-Nisa (Verses 58 & 65) Surah Al-Maida (Verses 38, 42, 44, 45, 47 & 49) Surah Sad (Verses 22 & 26) Surah Az-Zumar (Verse 46) Surah Al-Alaq (Verse 8) Surah Al-Qasas (Verse 77) Surah Al-Ma’idah (Verse 33) Judgments: PLD 2010 SC 1021 (Nazar Hussain Case) Order dated 30.09.2020 in CP No.4-P of 2020 The court concluded that the differentiation in remission policies under Section 21-F for terrorism-related offences is justified and not repugnant to the Islamic injunctions.

Summary: Background: Two Shariat petitions were filed challenging Sections 496-B and 496-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, as being un-Islamic. The petitions were filed by Dr. Mohammad Aslam Khaki, Advocate, and Irum Malik. The petitioners argued that these sections, which pertain to rape and fornication, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. ----Issues: 1- Whether Sections 496-B and 496-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, are repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. 2- Whether the provisions introduced by the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, are in line with Islamic teachings. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petitions for the following reasons: --Previous Judgments: The court referred to previous judgments, particularly PLD 2011 FSC 1 and PLD 2017 FSC 63, which had already dealt with similar issues. These judgments had declared that the provisions of the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, were not repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. --Definition of Hudood: The court reiterated that the term "Hudood" covers various categories of offenses, including zina (adultery, fornication, and rape), and that the provisions introduced by the Protection of Women Act fall within this scope. --Distinct Nature of Offenses: The court emphasized that the offenses of zina and rape are distinct, with different standards of proof and punishments. Zina requires a higher standard of proof as prescribed by Hudood laws, while rape can be proven with ordinary standards of proof, such as beyond a reasonable doubt. --Jurisdiction and Authority: The court highlighted that the Islamic State of Pakistan has the authority to legislate laws to protect life, property, and dignity. The state can introduce penal provisions to address offenses where the stringent requirements of Hudood cannot be met but where guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. --Council of Islamic Ideology: The court acknowledged the recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology, which had declared the Protection of Women (Criminal Law Amendment) Act, 2006, contrary to the injunctions of Islam, but maintained that the court's earlier decisions still stand. Both Shariat Petitions No. 12/I of 2020 and 17/I of 2022 were dismissed as not maintainable. The court concluded that the issues raised had already been thoroughly discussed and adjudicated in earlier judgments, and the appeal against these decisions is pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court. ----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2011 FSC 1 (Mian Abdur Razzaq Aamir and others vs. Federal Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others) PLD 2017 FSC 63 (Shahid Orakzai vs. Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad)

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending