The National Assembly of Pakistan has recently passed an amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that provides the law enforcement agencies and the government with powers to detain any “suspicious” individual for up to three months without the right to trial. This arbitrary amendment cannot be treated as part of the normal course of law. It is an alarming move on the part of the incumbent government and a wake-up call for all citizens, whether connected to the legal fraternity or not. The amendment is a deliberate attempt to legitimise the notorious concept of preventive detention — a concept that is at odds with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of 1973.
History tells us that whenever such selective amendments have been enacted, they have been widely misused as weapons of suppression against political opponents and dissenting voices critical of the government at that time. A case in point is the ongoing wave of convictions being handed down to PTI workers, charged under dubious allegations of terrorism for acts of rioting and vandalism. This amendment poses a grave risk to democratic norms, which are already lying in a critical ward.
At the heart of the problem lies a single word: “suspicious.” It has not been defined anywhere in the amendment. Vague language in criminal law is a loaded weapon in the hands of the powerful. The interpretation of “suspicious” is left entirely to those making the arrest, giving state agencies and the government unchecked power to bend the law against any individual they wish to detain.
The essence of democracy lies not merely in holding elections but in ensuring that the law protects every citizen equally — including those who oppose the government of the day
The Constitution of 1973 devotes its first chapter to fundamental rights. Article 8 provides clear safeguards against any law that undermines these rights, declaring such law void. Articles 9 and 10 guarantee protection against arbitrary arrest and mandate that a detainee must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. This amendment bypasses these safeguards, replacing judicial oversight with executive discretion. This amendment is not only unlawful but also fundamentally at odds with the spirit of constitutionalism.
Internationally, Pakistan is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the unlawful practices of arbitrary detention and advocates for the right to a fair trial. By introducing an amendment that grants recognition to arbitrary detention, Pakistan not only harms its human rights reputation at international forums but also undermines its diplomatic campaign against the ongoing human rights violations of Kashmiris by the Modi government.
Similar measures undertaken in the past by previous governments have already been struck down by the superior judiciary. In a case titled Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. State, the Supreme Court held that detention without sufficient evidence or judicial review constitutes an abuse of power and is unconstitutional. Likewise, in Asma Jilani v. Government of Punjab, the Court ruled that preventive detention under “security” laws is anathema to constitutionalism and reaffirmed the judiciary’s authority to strike down such provisions.
The essence of democracy lies not merely in holding elections but in ensuring that the law protects every citizen equally — including those who oppose the government of the day.
Parliament must urgently reconsider this amendment before it becomes another dark chapter in our legal history. If unchecked, this amendment will not strengthen the state but weaken it — for no democracy can survive when fear replaces freedom and law becomes a tool of political vendetta.