Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan is often touted as a catch-all provision that can be used to bring anyone to trial for whatever crime they may have committed. However, the reality is quite different from what many people seem to believe.
Article 6 is, in fact, the defense mechanism of the Constitution. It is a provision that is essential for the proper functioning of the Constitution. A trial under Article 6 can only be brought for acts such as abrogating, subverting, suspending, or holding the Constitution in abeyance, or for conspiring or attempting to do so.
It is important to note that Article 6 does not deal with sedition. Sedition is punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code, and it involves conduct that inclines towards insurrection against a valid established order. This is different from high treason, which is what Article 6 is meant to address.
Despite the clear distinctions between sedition and high treason, there are many who seem to conflate the two. For example, recent calls to bring Altaf Hussain, Mahmood Achakzai or Imran khan to trial under Article 6 are misplaced. While their actions may be punishable under the PPC, they do not rise to the level of high treason, which is what Article 6 is intended to address.
The real problem with Article 6, however, is not its narrow scope, but rather its lack of effectiveness. Despite the fact that it is meant to prevent the subversion of the Constitution, it has proven to be largely useless in this regard. There have been no staid trials or convictions under Article 6, and even the one trial that did take place was largely ineffective.
One reason for this is that anyone aiding or abetting an act of high treason is also guilty of high treason in principle. This means that anyone who served under an abrogated Constitution, including judges, generals, and parliamentarians, is also guilty of Article 6. This makes it difficult to bring anyone to trial without risking widespread political upheaval.
In light of all this, it may be time to reconsider the usefulness of Article 6. While it is an important provision in theory, it has proven to be largely ineffective in practice. Perhaps it is time to either amend it or remove it altogether and focus instead on strengthening other provisions of the Constitution that are better suited to prevent the subversion of the state.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Ameer Mukhtiar
the writer is a practicing
Advocate & Faculty of Law
The Lex – Contributor
