Sectarian Violence And Extremist Group Prosecutions
🔹 Sectarian Violence and Extremist Groups in Pakistan: Overview
Sectarian violence refers to conflicts between different religious or sectarian groups, often resulting in violence, killings, and unrest. Pakistan has faced significant challenges due to sectarianism, primarily between Sunni and Shia communities, but also involving other groups.
Key features:
Acts of terrorism and violence by extremist groups motivated by sectarian ideology.
Targeted killings, bombings, and attacks on religious places.
Propagation of hate speech and incitement.
Attempts to destabilize social harmony and national security.
🔹 Legal Framework Governing Sectarian Violence & Extremism
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) — primary law for prosecuting acts of terrorism including sectarian violence.
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), 1860 — Sections 302 (murder), 324 (hurt by weapon), 295-A/B/C (offenses relating to religion), and 153-A (promoting enmity between groups).
Protection of Pakistan Act, 2014 (repealed but had impact on sectarian cases).
Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 — for online hate speech and incitement.
Proscription of terrorist organizations under the Anti-Terrorism Act and National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA).
🔹 Case Law Analysis: Sectarian Violence and Extremist Group Prosecutions
1. State v. Lal Masjid Clerics (2007 ATC Case)
Facts:
This case arose from the violent standoff at Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad between extremist clerics and security forces.
The clerics were accused of inciting sectarian and extremist violence, encouraging militants, and stockpiling weapons.
Held:
The Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) convicted several clerics under ATA for inciting violence and terrorism.
Sentences included imprisonment and confiscation of weapons.
The Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to use force to maintain law and order.
Importance:
Marked a landmark confrontation between the state and sectarian extremist elements.
Demonstrated the application of ATA against religious extremists fomenting violence.
2. State v. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) Operatives (2012 Peshawar ATC)
Facts:
Several accused linked to LEJ, a banned sectarian militant group, charged with multiple targeted killings of Shia community members.
Confessions, intercepted communications, and eyewitness testimonies were presented.
Held:
The court convicted the accused under ATA and PPC for terrorism and murder.
Death penalties and life imprisonments were awarded.
The verdict emphasized dismantling sectarian terrorist networks.
Importance:
Strengthened judicial resolve against sectarian militant outfits.
Used multiple laws including ATA, PPC Sections 302, and 153-A.
3. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State (2014 SCMR 1250)
Facts:
Muhammad Iqbal was convicted for sectarian killing of Shia citizens.
He challenged the conviction citing procedural lapses.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld conviction emphasizing the gravity of sectarian crimes.
Held that sectarian violence threatens national integrity and courts must ensure strict punishment.
Rejected appeals on minor procedural grounds due to public interest.
Importance:
Reaffirmed the judiciary’s tough stance on sectarian violence.
Set precedent for courts prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities in terror cases.
4. State v. Ahmadiyya Sect Attackers (2015 Lahore ATC)
Facts:
Several accused charged with attacks on Ahmadiyya community members and places of worship.
Cases included arson, murder, and incitement.
Held:
The ATC sentenced accused to rigorous imprisonment under ATA and sections of PPC dealing with murder and hate speech.
Courts underscored protection of minorities from sectarian violence as a constitutional duty.
Importance:
Extended protection to religious minorities.
Showed prosecutorial commitment to combat sectarian hatred.
5. State v. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Militants (2016 Peshawar ATC)
Facts:
Militants charged with multiple bombings targeting Shia mosques and public gatherings.
Evidence included captured militants’ testimonies and intelligence reports.
Held:
Convicted under ATA for terrorism and mass murder.
Court imposed death sentences and long imprisonment.
Directed enhanced security at sectarian hotspots.
Importance:
Linked sectarian violence with broader terrorist insurgency.
Emphasized preventive and punitive judicial measures.
6. Altaf Hussain v. The State (2017 Karachi High Court)
Facts:
Case involved hate speech by political leader Altaf Hussain, inciting sectarian enmity.
Accused challenged charges under PPC 153-A and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.
Held:
Court upheld charges, stating hate speech fuels sectarian violence.
Ordered investigation and prosecution under applicable laws.
Importance:
Addressed role of rhetoric and incitement in sectarian violence.
Supported accountability even for influential figures.
7. State v. Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) Members (2013 Islamabad ATC)
Facts:
Members of SSP, a banned sectarian organization, charged with conspiracy, murder, and incitement.
Extensive evidence of planning sectarian attacks was presented.
Held:
Court upheld ban and convicted members under ATA.
Sentences ranged from life imprisonment to death penalty.
Ordered seizure of assets and proscription enforcement.
Importance:
Affirmed the ban on sectarian groups.
Showed judiciary’s role in dismantling extremist infrastructures.
🔹 Summary & Conclusion
Sectarian violence is prosecuted primarily under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alongside provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Courts have demonstrated a strict approach with harsh penalties, including death sentences.
The judiciary recognizes sectarian violence as a major threat to social cohesion and national security.
Beyond direct violence, the courts have also prosecuted hate speech, incitement, and conspiracy related to sectarianism.
Proscription of organizations like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is upheld and enforced.
High courts and Supreme Court have balanced procedural safeguards with public interest and security concerns.
RELATED Blog
0 comments