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

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 t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hassan, Muhammad, Usman, Ahmed, Amir, Farah, Shamsuddin, Johan
Format: Article
Published: Cogent OA 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:http://eprints.um.edu.my/43579/
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85133720871&doi=10.1080%2f23311886.2022.2087325&partnerID=40&md5=0533d29d7002b0dbea15d64c8da8cdc1
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.um.eprints.43579
record_format eprints
spelling my.um.eprints.435792023-10-26T04:57:58Z http://eprints.um.edu.my/43579/ Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis Hassan, Muhammad Usman, Ahmed Amir, Farah Shamsuddin, Johan K Law (General) 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. © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Cogent OA 2022 Article PeerReviewed Hassan, Muhammad and Usman, Ahmed and Amir, Farah and Shamsuddin, Johan (2022) Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis. Cogent Social Sciences, 8 (1). ISSN 2331-1886, DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2087325 <https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2087325>. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85133720871&doi=10.1080%2f23311886.2022.2087325&partnerID=40&md5=0533d29d7002b0dbea15d64c8da8cdc1 10.1080/23311886.2022.2087325
institution Universiti Malaya
building UM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Malaya
content_source UM Research Repository
url_provider http://eprints.um.edu.my/
topic K Law (General)
spellingShingle K Law (General)
Hassan, Muhammad
Usman, Ahmed
Amir, Farah
Shamsuddin, Johan
Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
description 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. © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
format Article
author Hassan, Muhammad
Usman, Ahmed
Amir, Farah
Shamsuddin, Johan
author_facet Hassan, Muhammad
Usman, Ahmed
Amir, Farah
Shamsuddin, Johan
author_sort Hassan, Muhammad
title Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
title_short Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
title_full Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
title_fullStr Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
title_full_unstemmed Perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
title_sort perceptions of the eminent experts over the constitution (twenty-first amendment) act, 2015: an analysis
publisher Cogent OA
publishDate 2022
url http://eprints.um.edu.my/43579/
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85133720871&doi=10.1080%2f23311886.2022.2087325&partnerID=40&md5=0533d29d7002b0dbea15d64c8da8cdc1
_version_ 1781704680681766912
score 13.149126