Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis

Abstract

To eradicate terrorism sternly and speedily, the Parliament of Pakistan amended the constitution and empowered the military courts to try the suspect civilian terrorists. The criticism has been copious, and multiple petitions were filed before the apex court around the country. They contended that the Parliament amended the salient features of the constitution beyond its amending powers and is liable to be struck down. Further, expanding the jurisdiction of the military courts over the alleged civilian terrorists is a contravention of their fundamental rights and the principle of judicial independence. The Supreme Court has ruled that it had no jurisdiction to examine the constitutional amendment and strike it down. Further, the Parliament was competent to expand the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians terrorists to secure the country’s safety and integrity. Hence, it is not a violation of the fundamental rights of the civilian suspect terrorists, and it is consistent with the prescribed criminal justice system. This study examines the judicial verdict rendered by the apex court of Pakistan in favour of the twenty-first constitutional amendment with the support of the eminent experts’ views taken by way of conducting face-to-face interviews.

Keywords

• constitution
• fundamental rights
• military courts
• terrorism
• amendment