ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa Wednesday constituted a seven-member bench to determine the definition of ‘terrorism’, and the cases that fall under the category.
The newly constituted bench will be headed by Chief Justice Khosa.
Cases that fall under terrorism charges have remained ambiguous since 1997.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court released its detailed judgement over the legal status of false testimony, ordering legal proceedings under perjury against any witness found to have resorted to deliberate falsehood.
The order, penned by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in reference to a case of false testimony of Assistant Sub-Inspector Khizar Hayat, rejected false testimony by a witness and declared that the rule ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) will henceforth be an integral part of jurisprudence in criminal cases.
SC orders legal proceedings under perjury over false testimony
The apex court in its judgement ordered courts not to allow any leniency against those resorting to false testimonies and reject testimonies if even a part of them is based on lies. “A judicial system which permits deliberate falsehood is doomed to fail and a society which tolerates it is destined to self-destruct. Truth is the foundation of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No 200 of 2019. Justice and justice is the core and bedrock of a civilized society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society’s future as a just, fair and civilized society,” the order read.
“Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of the above mentioned permissible deviation from the truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness. Therefore, in light of the discussion made above, we declare that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the courts in the country in its letter and spirit,” it continued. “It is also directed that a witness found by a court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury,” it concluded.
