P L D 2025 Balochistan 25 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, C.J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner, viz. Munawar Khan, seeks a declaration to the effect that inclusion of his name in the 4th Schedule under section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, vide Notification dated 23.07.2024, issued by Deputy Commissioner, Quetta (respondent No.3), is illegal and unconstitutional.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a professional driver on the Karachi-Quetta route earning a respectable income to support his family and has never been the subject of any adverse investigation, complaint or accusation. However, on 23.07.2024, the respondent No.3 issued Notification No.620/AB/DC/(DICC)/2024, whereby placing his name on the 4th Schedule under section 11-EE of the ATC Act, 1997 with the allegation that he is affiliated with the proscribed organization, BLA and TTP. The petitioner further maintains that in this respect he filed a representation before respondent No.2, seeking review and reconsideration of the impugned order and thereafter made repeated appeals, but the same remained unanswered, hence this petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Jameel Ramzan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned notification dated 23.07.2024.

4. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens, including the right to life, liberty, and security. Article 4 of the Constitution states that every citizen has the right to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with the law. This provision underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state action. In the context of constitutional rights, the interpretation of laws that curtail the liberties of citizens is a critical aspect of legal jurisprudence. The principle of strict interpretation is grounded in the understanding that any law, which imposes restrictions on fundamental rights, must be clear, precise, and unambiguous. Fundamental rights are paramount to ordinary state-made laws and cannot be curtailed without clear legislative intent and such law is required to be scrutinized rigorously to ensure it does not violate constitutional guarantees.

5. Considering the impugned order on the touch stone of the above settled principles of law, we are of the considered view that the same is based merely on surmises and conjectures to the extent of the present petitioner which is neither justified and reasonable nor in accordance with constitutional provisions. The respondents have failed to produce a single document or credible evidence to substantiate the claim that the petitioner is concerned in terrorism, an activist, office bearer on an associate of an organization kept under observation under section 11D or proscribed under section 11B and/ or in any way concerned or suspected to be concerned with such organization or affiliated with any group or organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism or acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, any person or organization proscribed under this Act. Furthermore, as per the petitioner, he has also sworn in an affidavit/ executed a bond as envisaged under section 11EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In light of the above analysis, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner, Quetta acted beyond the scope of his authority by issuing the impugned order without any material evidence and through a non-speaking order based on surmises and conjectures. Such an order is not only arbitrary but also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. The impugned order is hereby declared illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority to the extent of the present petitioner and the respondents are directed to delete the name of the petitioner from the same. MQ/161/Bal. Petition allowe