2011 SCMR 1139 (PLP)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and another — Petitioners Versus Hafiz MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1139 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and another — Petitioners Versus Hafiz MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1139 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 1139 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Rahmat Hussain Jafferi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1139 (PLP) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT and another — Petitioners Versus Hafiz MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saeed Yousaf, Additional A.-G. Punjab for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1180 of 2009).
- K. K. Agha, Additional A.-G. for Pakistan and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1184 of 2009).
- A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 to 2 (in both cases).
- Date of hearing: 25th May, 2010.
- 3. The Attorney-General for Pakistan as well as Advocate-General, Punjab, had contested the writ petition and raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that since the Review Board, a Constitutional Body constituted under Article 10(4) of the Constitution had extended the preventive detention of the detenus upon examining the material against them, the High Court was not possessed with jurisdiction to examine the legality of the detention. This argument did not prevail with the High Court. On facts the Government justified the detention on the basis of a resolution passed by UNO, directing travel restriction, freezing of funds and imposition of other embargoes on certain organizations including Jamat-ud-Dawa to which the respondents belong, alleging their involvement in terrorism. Additionally, confidential and sensitive reports of intelligence agencies were also submitted to the Court, which were examined in camera. The Court, however, did not find the material sufficient and substantial to justify the respondents' detention.
- 3.(sic). Mr. Saeed Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, appearing for the Government of Punjab, upon our inquiry, was not in a position to produce any material that could justify placing the respondents under preventive detention. Rather he volunteered that the Provincial Government had not received any complaints of their involvement in any objectionable activities since their release by the High Court in June, 2009.
- 5. Whatever may have been the circumstances or the material available against the respondents at the time of hearing of Writ Petition by the High Court, the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate-General before us that there has been no complaint against the respondents since their release is sufficient to hold that presently no cause exists to put the respondents in preventive detention. Reversal of the judgment of the High Court and ordering detention of the respondents on the basis of the orders passed more than a year would not be legally warranted when presently the respondents are admittedly not involved in any activity necessitating their preventive detention. Thus we do not consider the question of preventive detention as a live issue.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 2-6-2009 passed in W.P. No. 6208 of 2009).
Ss. 3 & 26
Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3)
Release of detenu by order of High Court
Absence of any complaint against detenu and his non-involvement in any activity necessitating preventive dentention since his release would be sufficient to show that no cause existed to put him in preventive detention
Reversal of order of High Court and ordering detention of respondent on basis of orders passed by authority more than a year ago would not be legally warranted
Issue of preventive detention was no longer alive
Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, J.
These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed respectively by the Government of the Punjab and the Federation of Pakistan, assailing the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 6208 of 2009, allowing the Habeas Corpus Petition of the respondents, Hatiz Muhammad Saeed and three others and set aside their orders of detention, directing their release.
2. The respondents were detained for a period of 30 days under section 3 read with section 26 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, by orders issued by the District Co-Ordination Officers Lahore, Khanewal and Rawalpindi on 12th and 13th December, 2008. The period of detention was further extended by the Secretary Home Department, Government of Punjab on 9-1-2009 for a further period of 60 days. The Review Board on 9-3-2009 made a further extension of the detention period for 60 days.
3. The Attorney-General for Pakistan as well as Advocate-General, Punjab, had contested the writ petition and raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that since the Review Board, a Constitutional Body constituted under Article 10(4) of the Constitution had extended the preventive detention of the detenus upon examining the material against them, the High Court was not possessed with jurisdiction to examine the legality of the detention. This argument did not prevail with the High Court. On facts the Government justified the detention on the basis of a resolution passed by UNO, directing travel restriction, freezing of funds and imposition of other embargoes on certain organizations including Jamat-ud-Dawa to which the respondents belong, alleging their involvement in terrorism. Additionally, confidential and sensitive reports of intelligence agencies were also submitted to the Court, which were examined in camera. The Court, however, did not find the material sufficient and substantial to justify the respondents' detention. 3.(sic). Mr. Saeed Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, appearing for the Government of Punjab, upon our inquiry, was not in a position to produce any material that could justify placing the respondents under preventive detention. Rather he volunteered that the Provincial Government had not received any complaints of their involvement in any objectionable activities since their release by the High Court in June, 2009.
4. Mr. K. K. Agha, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan however, assailed the impugned judgment on a legal plan. He referred to Article 10(4) of the Constitution that provides for setting up of a Review Board, empowered to extend the period of preventive detention. The learned Additional Attorney-General contended that once the said Constitutional Body extended the period of detention after examining the material placed before it, the High Court was left with no power to re-examine the same material in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. That in view of the extension of the period of the respondents by the Review Board, comprising of the Judges of the High Court, the writ of Habeas Corpus was not maintainable.
5. Whatever may have been the circumstances or the material available against the respondents at the time of hearing of Writ Petition by the High Court, the statement made by the learned Additional Advocate-General before us that there has been no complaint against the respondents since their release is sufficient to hold that presently no cause exists to put the respondents in preventive detention. Reversal of the judgment of the High Court and ordering detention of the respondents on the basis of the orders passed more than a year would not be legally warranted when presently the respondents are admittedly not involved in any activity necessitating their preventive detention. Thus we do not consider the question of preventive detention as a live issue.
6. As regards the legal question raised by the learned Additional Attorney-General, we are of the view that the arguments addressed on the question are not without force. However, the acceptance of the contention would not lead to the reversal of the impugned judgment, as we have held that the issue of preventive detention is no longer alive. The legal point so raised can be examined in another appropriate case.
7. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal declined. S.A.K./G-7/SC Leave refused.