Preventive Detention

Petitioners were detained by authorities on the plea that they were notorious members of Qabza Mafia and threatened the local community including a sitting Senator

Validity

Record transpired that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) against the petitioners on the request of District Police Officer, Assistant Commissioner and Naib Tehsildar, however, sufficient material had neither been collected nor brought before him against the petitioners nor their cases had been considered prior to the issuance of the impugned orders

As such, the authority issuing the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) had not exercised its mandate in accordance with law on subject

Impugned orders had been issued in a mechanical manner without application of the judicial and independent mind to cases of the petitioners

Sufficient material had neither been collected nor presented before the Deputy Commissioner and without applying an impartial and judicial mind, the impugned orders had been issued mechanically

Impugned orders were prima facie omnibus in its kind and type and cases of the petitioners had not been individually and specifically discussed nor valid and genuine reasons had been highlighted therein to convince

Moreover, it also appeared that such orders had been issued under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance), whereby, liberty of a person was curtailed and in the petition in hand, some of the petitioners had been restrained and restricted

In such like circumstances, issuance of the impugned orders under S.3-MPO (Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance) did not fulfil the jurisdictional requirements of its issuance under the ibid provision of the law on subject

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

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 laws are required to be scrutinized rigorously to ensure they do not violate constitutional guarantees.

Petitioner assailed order of his detention under S. 3(1) of Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 2002) (MPO)

Petitioner was detained for adversely affecting the public safety, order and maintenance of law and order

Validity

Section 3 of the MPO empowers the government to detain a person if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent that person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order

Law mandates that the authority issuing the detention order must provide clear and cogent reasons for such action, supported by material evidence

Deputy Commissioner must not act arbitrarily or capriciously, rather, the decision must be based upon credible evidence that substantiates the claim of potential harm to public order

In the present case detention order was based merely on surmises and conjectures and detention of the petitioner was neither justified and reasonable nor in accordance with constitutional provisions

Respondent failed to produce a single document or credible evidence to substantiate the claim of potential harm to public order

Detention order failed to articulate the reasons for detention

Authority must provide a reasoned order that reflects the application of mind to the facts of the case and failure to provide reasons for detention had rendered the detention order illegal and void

Order passed by authority was declared to be illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority.

Application of such law aims to curtail liberty of individual without any explicit and actionable criminal charge with a view to protect society from such individual's anticipated illegal or criminal activity

Preventive detention gives wide discretion to executive authority of being 'satisfied' to order preventive detention

There is always an apprehension of use of such detention on the basis of mere suspicion

Respondents failed to satisfy High Court that they passed detention orders as prescribed in law and had failed to show that 'satisfaction' in fact existed

Detention order was not based on evidence and was conjectural and grounds of detention were vague and indefinite

Detention orders were not issued at all against some petitioners while for other petitioners a list was prepared containing their names but said list was totally silent as to who prepared it let alone providing an iota of evidence to warrant issuance of detention orders against petitioners

High Court set aside the detention orders as the same were not sustainable on facts as well as on law

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

For the purpose of passing an order for protective detention there should be sound material showing that individual/detenu was busy in any activity prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order, in any of documentary forms like SMS/voice messages, WhatsApp messages, social media accounts, pamphlets/handouts, posters, play cards, photographs, paintings, caricatures, books/literature, newspapers, audio/video CDs, Electronic and digital material, wall chalking, banners/pena flex, recording of demonstrations in rallies, material on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media account, call records, geo-fencing through CDR, speeches in public meetings, Radio and T.V. shows, surveillance report in any form, reports from international agencies, suspicious transaction report from any financial institution, membership record of affiliated association or political party etc.

No such record was brought on record or even referred by authorities against petitioners

Orders assailed were bereft of any supportive material

High Court declared detention orders to have been passed in flagrant violation of S.3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

High Court directed the authorities to release petitioners and set aside preventive detentions

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was arrested by authorities under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, after he was released on his acquittal in a criminal trial

Validity

Keyword in S. 3(1) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was "satisfaction"

Authority had to satisfy that based on the material placed before it, the other consequences referred to in the order could flow

Standard must be high, as no person could be lightly deprived of his right to life and liberty, especially if they already spent nine years in jail and had been acquitted by appellate Court

At the time of issuing order in question Provincial Government did not lodge any appeal against acquittal before Supreme Court

Police acted malafidely in its overzealousness to appease public and media without giving sufficient weight to liberty of petitioner and others named in the order

Whole exercise leading up to issuance of order in question was a colorable exercise of authority by the executive

No reasonable person could have been satisfied on the material which was placed before the authority for issuing order in question

High Court struck down order of detention of petitioner as it was illegal and had been passed without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Order under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, could not be based on conjectures and surmises

Such order should be based on concrete and tangible evidence

Grounds on the basis of which detention order of a person was issued must be supported by sufficient and cogent material of the nature as would satisfy an ordinary prudent person to justify issuance of order of preventive detention

High Court declared detention order issued by District Magistrate as well as arrest of petitioner unlawful in presence of earlier order passed by High Court

High Court directed the authorities to release petitioner forthwith from the custody

Petitioner submitted undertaking to the effect that he would in no manner resort to violence or incite any violence and would not join any violent protest and abide by restrictions placed in order passed under S. 144, Cr.P.C.

High Court also restrained authorities for two days from arresting petitioner in another criminal case already registered against him, so as to enable him to approach relevant Court to seek bail before arrest

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

One of the key attributes of Constitution is that it seeks to protect and safeguard rights of individuals from misuse or abuse of executive powers and does so by enshrining a number of fundamental rights which are found in First Chapter of the Constitution

Constitution also aims to strike a fair, legal and legitimate balance in preventive detention in appropriate cases in the interest of State based on sound reasons and prevent such detention from being misused for ulterior purposes by the Executive.

Review Board under Art.10(4) of the Constitution consist of High Court Judges whose role along with others is to evaluate intelligence material

If in subjective analysis of intelligence material Courts play no role in such respect, the same would in effect oust Court's jurisdiction of judicial review which would mean that there would be no check and balance on the Executive which may pass Preventive Detention Orders malafidely and/or in a whimsical and arbitrary manner without application of mind and detained person would have no judicial recourse for redressal of his grievance

Such proposition is not acceptable keeping in view Art. 199 of the Constitution, where one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to protect its citizens against misuse and or abuse of Executive Authority

Pakistan under the Constitution is based on trichotomy of powers where checks and balances operate on each organ of State.

Petitioner was convicted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, who had completed his sentence but he was not released due to successive PDOs passed by authorities

Plea raised by authorities was that petitioner was 'enemy alien'

Validity

In only third and final PDO it was stated that petitioner was detained as 'enemy alien' under Art. 10(9) of the Constitution which was an after-thought by Provincial Government in order to thwart petitioner's ability to review his detention under third PDO under Art. 10(4) of the Constitution, otherwise such wording would have appeared in first PDO or at least the second PDO

Third PDO was drafted in hurry and was self-contradictory designed to keep petitioner behind bars for ever at all costs

On one hand provision of Art. 10 of the Constitution had given petitioner a right to make representation vis a vis his detention under Art. 10(5) of the Constitution and then in effect had taken away such right by declaring him as 'enemy alien' under Art. 10(9) of the Constitution

Such was how criminal justice system worked and enabled public to have faith in the same

Issuing continuous and successive PDOs on unjustified grounds just to keep a person in jail, despite his acquittal by Courts only served to undermine and lessen confidence in criminal justice system in the eyes of public and led to perception that it was not based on the principles of equality and fair play and that the rule of law which so cherished was being compromised by the Executive authorities

Provincial Government acted malafidely in mechanical manner in issuing three PDOs one after the other with sole intention of keeping petitioner in jail after his acquittal

Authorities had deliberately and illegally deprived petitioner of his right to liberty without any legally justifiable reason

High Court struck down third PDO as the same was issued malafidely by Provincial Government and was violative of Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10-A, 14, 15 & 25 of the Constitution and were issued without lawful authority

Petitioner was found not to be 'enemy alien' so as to fall within the ambit of Art. 10(9) of the Constitution

Detention of petitioner under Art. 10(9) of the Constitution was illegal and without lawful authority

Petition was allowed, in circumstances.

High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review under Art. 199 of the Constitution, can examine the validity of the detention order passed under S. 3(1) of Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960.

Petitioner was detained for being a potential threat to the public safety and for provoking the general masses against the State

Validity

Government had to be satisfied, in order to arrest and detain a person under section 3(1) of Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, that the activities of such person were prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order

No sufficient cause was available to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner

Satisfaction of government had to be objective in nature and not subjective or of such nature as to allow the authorities to act on whims and caprices without there being any material before them in support of the grounds for preventive detention

Grounds mentioned by the authorities for preventive detention of petitioner were general in nature which were not substantiated by any material

Orders passed by authorities was declared to be null, void and of no legal effects.

Accused person was an alleged narcotics peddler who was detained by authorities under S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Validity

No allegations of smuggling were mentioned in order of detention of accused issued under S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Alleged act of accused had got no nexus with purpose and object of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

If government wanted to deal with accused they had at their disposal a robust legal regime in form of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 wherein Legislature took care to deal with all aspects of business in trade of narcotics

Accused even if found to have been dealing with any such business of selling narcotics could have been dealt with under provisions of such law

Recourse to provisions of S.3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was not at all justified

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order of detention as same passed in respect of accused was found to be suffering from jurisdictional defect and passed without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was detained for having a criminal history, association with other people of such background, involvement in several FIRs, for instigating young people against the regime and for intimidating people

Validity

Respondent could not place any material on record which showed that the petitioner was convicted in any of the criminal cases

Involvement in certain criminal cases and association with other people of bad character hardly justified preventive detention

Other grounds mentioned in the impugned orders were vague and indefinite and no material was available on record to support them

Authority had no occasion to apply its independent mind to the question whether S.3(1) of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 should be invoked against the petitioner

Impugned orders were declared to have been issued without lawful authority and the petitioner was directed to be released

Constitutional petition was accepted.

Criteria to be followed detailed.

Mere availability of alternate remedy by way of representation to the government against detention order does not fetter constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199.

Grounds of detention must be precise and the detention order can be struck down if those are not precise.

Mere availability of alternate remedy by way or representation to government against detention order had not fettered Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution

Authorities passed order of detention mechanically without caring for legal requirements

Ground that petitioner was engaged in antisocial activities was vague and not supported by any tangible evidence and authorities held that petitioner was a threat to public peace for only reason that he had a criminal history and was a habitual offender

Mere fact that a person was involved in certain criminal cases and associated with other people of bad character did not justify preventive detention

High Court released the petitioner and quashed order of preventive detention

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Authorities raised the plea that Constitutional petition was not maintainable due to non-filing of representation under S. 3(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, to Provincial Government, which had power to rescind or modify order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

Validity

Order of detention must show on the face of it that detaining authority was satisfied to the effect specified under relevant law and if there was no record of satisfaction of detaining authority, the order of detention could be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and ab initio void

Objection of authorities was not tenable as order in question was passed in utter disregard of law and was coram non-judice and nullity in the eyes of law

Petitioner need not have filed representation before Provincial Government as contemplated under S.3(6) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Representation could only be made when order was passed within four corners of the provisions of S.3(1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

No adequate or efficacious remedy was available to petitioner which could debar him from filing Constitutional petition before High Court

High Court declared order passed by Deputy Commissioner as illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, void ab-initio and the same was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners assailed detention orders passed under Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 through constitutional petitions

State contended that detention orders could not be questioned through constitutional petition as the detenus had alternate remedies of filing representation and thereafter appeal

Validity

Normally, aggrieved person had to exhaust the alternate remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, but High Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction could not refuse to safeguard the fundamental rights merely on technical grounds particularly when the matter entailed the right of liberty, security, dignity and freedom of any person, which had been fully protected and safeguarded by the provisions of Chapter-I, Part-II of the Constitution

High Court, being a constitutional court, had legal and Constitutional obligation to safeguard the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of the country and failure of the detenus to make representation to the executive was not a bar on the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

High Court held that alternate remedies were not as efficacious as that of filing constitutional petition for determination of validity of the detention orders and as such legal objection on the maintainability of writ jurisdiction was turned down.

Petitioners were detained on the ground that they, being activists of a political party, were instigating the followers of their party as well as the general public to create law and order situation by blocking roads/traffic, due to which any untoward incident was likely to occur

Validity

Detention orders were not based on any substantial piece of evidence, because, neither any material was produced before the detaining authorities nor was taken into consideration

Detention orders were passed only on the basis of police reports without assessing whether reports were backed by any tangible material or not

Strong and cogent reasons were required for the issuance of detention orders, but the authorities while issuing the detention orders had acted mechanically in the aid of police and had failed to apply their independent minds

No conclusive proof was available that detenus were previously involved in any anti-State/Government activities

Constitutional petitions were allowed and the detenus were set at liberty.

Criteria to be satisfied.

Hundreds of people involved in crimes, either on bail or otherwise, were roaming on streets but not all of them were thrown in jail by executive officers under preventive detention laws

Possibility of misuse or arbitrary use of such power by executive authorities could not be ruled out

High Court set aside detention order passed by Authorities as same was illegal, void ab initio and contrary to guarantees provided to citizens by the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

District Magistrate without applying his mind to the information laid before him by the Police, used the words 'issue orders', for detention, in negation of duty enjoined upon him which was to satisfy himself that the order would serve the purpose of preventing petitioners from 'acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order'

Neither the impugned order nor the documents placed on record could furnish such justification or cogent reasons for preventive detention of the petitioners

Preventive detention on grounds of petitioners' involvement in criminal cases would certainly amount to double condemnation, as they ought to face a trial, which may culminate either in conviction or acquittal

Preventive detention on the report of local Police who had previously registered a criminal case against the petitioners, that too, without application of mind, was counter to the letter and spirit of law

Impugned orders were not sustainable in law

High Court directed the petitioners should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case

Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioner was that authorities had wrongly issued detention order against him under the provisions of S.3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Validity

Authority was required to have satisfied itself that material being placed by police before it was sufficient to issue preventive detention order, as right of liberty of person being curtailed, which had been guaranteed under Art. 10 of the Constitution

High Court set aside detention order pertaining to petitioner as the same was not legally justified and against the law and settled principles

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Involvement of petitioners in criminal cases and provoking the public for agitation and disruption of peaceful environment of the district had been made basis for issuance of detention order

Validity

District administration had no justification to resort to preventive detention under S. 3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 after registration of a criminal case on the basis of same occurrence

Impugned detention order against members of the protest rally facing similar charges was declared illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction, without lawful authority and perverse

Petitioners were set at liberty from the prison where they had been confined at present under the impugned orders

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Powers under S.3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, could not be invoked for detention of person on the grounds other than provided for by law

Preventive detention of a person who was either accused of an offence or a convict for a crime would not only amount to double jeopardy but would also militate against spirit of relevant law, prescribing procedure and penalties for commission of offences

Resort to preventive measures was useful only before commission of offence and not after the offence had been committed, whereafter case was registered and legal process for prosecution of perpetrator was initiated

High Court declared the order passed by authorities for preventive detention as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority, arbitrary, perverse and of no legal effect as there was no justification in law for order under S.3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

High Court directed the authorities to release him from jail

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Authority without applying its mind, mechanically passed an order on the recommendation of police even though the detenu was on bail and no such situation had arisen to have deprived the detenu of his liberty

Police could not be allowed to use the backdoor of arresting a person if such person had already been granted bail by a competent court

Detention in question was a sheer violation of law and the Constitution

Order passed by District Coordination Officer was coram non judice therefore, the detenu was not required to file a statutory representation as required by S.3(6) of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

High Court set aside the detention order passed by District Coordination Officer as the same was illegal and passed without lawful authority

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Consecutive extension exceeding the period of three months was also against the law, as under S.3(5-a) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, no person could be detained for a period exceeding three months unless the Board had reported before expiration of the period of three months, that there was in its opinion, sufficient cause for such detention

Petitioner had been detained for more than stipulated period by way of extending preventive detention, without constituting any Board and sufficient cause

High Court set aside order of detention of petitioner and set him at liberty

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

District Co-ordination Officer directed detention of detenus on the ground that their activities were pre-judicial to public peace and tranquility

Validity

Liberty of a citizen, save in accordance with law, had been protected by the Constitution

High Court being custodian of Constitution had to protect and safeguard fundamentally guaranteed rights

Impugned orders were non-speaking having no reasons justifying the detention of detenus nor there was any material on the record

Said orders even did not touch the pleas raised by the detenus

Edifice of satisfaction was to be built on the foundation of evidence as conjectural presumption could not be equated to that of "satisfaction" which was subjective assessment and there could be no objective satisfaction

If High Court had come to a conclusion that grounds mentioned in the detention orders were not supported by sufficient material then there was nothing stopping the High Court from exercising the power of judicial review

Material should be of such a nature by examination of which a man of common prudence must form his opinion that detention order had been rightly passed

Detaining authority was required to establish each and every ground of detention on the basis of sufficient material to justify its order

If material on any one of such ground was missing then the whole detention order would lose its sanctity and would be liable to be set aside

No ground whatsoever had been mentioned by the detaining authority while extending the detention order and impugned orders were clear indicative of the fact that said authority had neither examined the material nor applied its independent judicial mind

None of the detenue had been enlisted in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Where any information was received that a person was an activist, office bearer or an associate of an organization, or in any way had concern or suspected to be concerned with such organization or affiliated with any group or organization suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism then the name of such person could be placed in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

If some material was available with the Government against the detenus then their names should have been placed in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and would be required to execute a bond so that their activities could be kept under watch

Unless and until any such order placing their names in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was passed it could not be said that they were involved in sectarian activities

Allegations against the detenus could be checked more appropriately under S. 11 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Sufficient grounds must exist which would firstly satisfy the conscious of the detaining authority and such satisfaction might consist upon such a material on the basis of which even a man of common prudence would have no other option except to form an opinion tilting toward the detention order

Solid material should be collected by the agencies to establish sufficient ground to pass a detention order

Authorities must have a recourse to S. 154 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 before passing detention order when allegations levelled against the detenus in the said order had constituted a criminal offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or any other law

Most of the allegations levelled against the detenus were of criminal offences in the present case

Person who had received an information with regard to involvement of a person in an offence covered by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and he believed or suspected that someone had committed an offence under the said Act then he was under a legal compulsion to disclose such belief or suspicion to the police officer

Where Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had comprehensively dealt with almost all eventualities then first option to be exercised by the Government should be to set the provisions of said Act into motion through a process detailed in the same itself and detention order being an extreme step taking away the liberty of a person should be used only as a last resort

Priority should be given to book the persons in criminal cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or any relevant law if their activities were offences under such laws

Names of detenue were neither placed in Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 nor they were proceeded against under the said Act for committing criminal offences

No sufficient material was on record to justify the impugned detention orders

Detention orders were set aside and detenus were ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Constitutional petitions were accepted in circumstances.

Such act of Deputy Commissioner was nothing but infringement of right of liberty of a person provided and protected by the supreme law of the land "the Constitution"

Liberty of human being was considered to be a right ordained by the divine and followed by the man made law

Person could not be deprived of his divine right of liberty merely on presumption, unless, there was some material and proof against him to be detained

Order lacking any such material would be nothing but nullity in law

Petitioner remained involved in some offences for which he was charged, tried and sentenced

If he once again had committed any such offence then the legal course would be to book him in relevant offence instead of going for preventive detention

Detention of the petitioner under West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 could not be made just on the ground that he remained involved in criminal cases

Order of Deputy Commissioner was against the fundamental rights of citizen provided under the Constitution

Grounds for detention must be communicated to the person before his detention

Impugned order did not reveal that same was communicated to the petitioner which was bad in law and was not maintainable

Chief Secretary of the Province was directed to look into the matter

Constitutional petition was accepted and impugned order was set aside and petitioner was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other F.I.R.

Authorities were directed to chalk out F.I.Rs. against the petitioner if he was actually involved in any criminal activity

Deputy Commissioner was directed to do what was required by law to do and not to try to play with the law in such like manner.

After the petitioners were acquitted of the charge against which they had been in custody for the last more than two years, authorities issued detention orders and their release was denied

Validity

No evidence was available that names of petitioners were ever notified in the list entered in the Fourth Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Neither such fact was mentioned in preventive detention order nor even in the comments filed by authorities nor such list had been produced before High Court

Names of petitioners should be mentioned in the list but S.11-EE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, further provided that person whose name was notified would be required to execute a bond but there was no proof that petitioners were ever required to do so

Preventive detention order passed under S.11-EEE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was without jurisdiction and without complying with mandatory provisions of law

High Court did not find it necessary to again ask the petitioners to file representation as provided in Art.10(5) of the Constitution

High Court directed the authorities to release petitioners forthwith from jail and set aside detention orders passed by authorities against petitioners

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Authorities committed with High Court that if the representation was filed the same would be processed and decided in accordance with law by them expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing

Authorities were empowered under S. 6(3) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, to rescind detention order

High Court directed the petitioner to forward his representation to authorities to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by authorities

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Edifice of satisfaction is to be built on foundation of evidence, as conjectural presumption cannot be equated to that of "satisfaction", and it is subjective assessment and there can be no objective satisfaction

In exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, if High Court comes to conclusion that grounds mentioned in detention order are not supported by sufficient material, then there is nothing to stop High Court from exercising power of judicial review.

Petitioners were aggrieved of detention order passed against them by authorities for having contacts with proscribed organizations

Validity

Before passing detention order, authorities must have recourse to S.154, Cr.P.C., when allegations levelled against detenus in detention orders constituted a criminal offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Penal Code, 1860, or any other law, as most of the allegations levelled against detenus were criminal offences

Person who had received information about involvement of a person in offence covered under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and he believed or suspected that someone had committed an offence under such Act, that person was under legal compulsion to disclose such belief or suspicion to police officer

Neither names of detenus were ever placed in Fourth Schedule of the Act, nor they were proceeded against under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for committing criminal offences covered by law

No other material "sufficient" to justify detention orders passed against petitioners was available

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, set aside detention orders passed against petitioners

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

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.

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by petitioner was that detention order was illegal as authorities did not have any material to pass detention order against petitioner's husband

Validity

Detention order did not carry reasonable material to detain petitioner's husband further and to curb his liberty which was a fundamental right of every citizen guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution

Detention order was passed merely on presumptions and apprehensions, which had not been substantiated through specific allegations

Petitioner's husband being behind the bars for the past two years could not be considered as having caused immediate breach of peace within the territorial limits of Islamabad Capital Territory

Grounds of detention order were vague and indefinite which could not entail detention of petitioner's husband under S. 3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, on the ground of assumption that he had sympathies with proscribed organizations

Material before detaining authority was not of such nature that a reasonable person would be satisfied to the necessity for making the order of preventive detention

Authorities did not comply with the requirements of law relating to preventive detention

Detention order was passed in a mechanical manner without any reasonable justification and application of mind

High Court declared detention order of petitioner's husband to be passed illegally and the same was set aside

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Warrant under S.3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was issued against respondent who was a lawyer in connection with lawyers' movement to prevent law and order situation-Petitioner/S.H.O. who was entrusted with the said warrant for execution, performed his duty in his official capacity in execution of warrant strictly in accordance with law

Respondents who were advocates filed petition under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. with Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of case against the petitioner (S. H.O.)

Justice of Peace instead of deciding the application filed by the respondents, issued directions to the DPO for departmental action against the petitioner

Review petition filed by the petitioner against order of the Justice of Peace having been dismissed, he filed constitutional petition

Validity

Ex­officio Justice of Peace was neither acting in judicial capacity nor was a court, while exercising powers under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.-Role of Ex-officio Justice of Peace primarily was rendering assistance to the Police in the matter of keeping the peace; and in case of breach of the peace apprehending the culprit and rendering assistance to the Police in an investigation of the crime

Functions and duties conferred on an Ex-officio Justice of Peace were administrative, executive and ministerial in nature and character

Section 12(3) of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, empowered the petitioner (S.H.O.) or any other Police Officer executing the warrant under S.3 of said Ordinance to enter a place or house without recourse to general law or obtaining search warrant

Under the law presumption of good faith was attached to official acts committed during discharge of official duties unless proved to the contrary and it could not be held to be tainted with mala fide and in excess of authority/power amounting to abuse and misuse of authority by the petitioner in the discharge of his legal duties and functions

Justice of Peace, in circumstances, was not justified to issue directions for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner

By passing impugned order, Justice of Peace had travelled beyond his jurisdiction under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.

Justice of Peace by his order had practically punished the petitioner without any show-cause notice, inquiry and departmental proceedings which amounted to usurpation of powers of departmental authority responsible for maintaining departmental check and balance within the Police hierarchy

Impugned orders were declared wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority

Petition was allowed.

Parameters.

Petitioners had questioned the order of their preventive detention contending that they had never been involved in any activity as could prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order in the District

Nothing had been brought on the record to show that petitioners ever indulged in any activity, which could be prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order in the District concerned

Allegation that petitioners had been involved in a good number of cases in Swat, remained unsubstantiated as nothing had been brought on the record in that behalf

Havoc to the peace of area was anticipated on account of visits of militants to their house, but who witnessed those visits and how would they work havoc to the peace of area, was yet another allegation which also remained unsubstantiated

Petitioners were sons of Sofi Muhammad, who had been a source of strife and insurgency in Swat, but that alone could not justify their preventive detention on the analogy of S.21 of Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, which was not applicable in the area

When no material much less satisfactory had been brought (In the record to show that the petitioners were acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order

Petitioners were directed to be released.

Requirements to be satisfied by an order of preventive detention enumerated.

Review Board having been constituted only to form an opinion and to provide safeguard to the detainee, its opinion could not be termed as a judicial decision

Review Board did not have powers of the Government to extend the extension, but detaining authority could do so, on the opinion of the Review Board that sufficient cause for further detention was available

Constitutional petition was, therefore, maintainable and High Court could examine the validity of the detention orders

Detaining Authority, in the present case, had clearly violated the express mandatory provisions of Art.10(5) of the Constitution by not providing the grounds of detention to the detenus within 15 days of the passing of the order and deprived them to assail their detention before the competent forum and also to know the allegations against them

Petitioners detenus, thus, were not in a position to plead their case before the Review Board being completely ignorant about the allegations against them and first time they were confronted with the said allegations

Such violation of law alone was sufficient to declare the detention of the petitioners as illegal

Case of the present two petitioners was not distinguishable from the case of other detenus whose detention had not been extended

Detaining Authority was influenced only from Resolution of International Body and had not seen any other material

UNO Resolution did not require detention of any of the petitioners and no sufficient ground was available for their detention

Detention order, therefore, was bad and even if one of the grounds was bad, the whole of the order would be vitiated

Petitioners had been deprived of their liberty under the garb of preventive detention and they were being blamed for security risk without any evidence against them

Detaining Authority had passed a mechanical order without having considered the valuable rights of the petitioners regarding their liberty

Even no documentary or any other evidence had been produced in High Court or even alleged in their comments by the respon­dents to support the detention order

Fresh documents and fresh grounds could not be considered for extending the period of detention

No evidence was available to indicate involvement of the petitioners in anti-State activities and security risk

Impugned detention orders including the subsequent orders passed in continuation thereof were quashed and the petitioners were directed to be released forthwith in circumstances

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court is not barred even after the Review Board extends the detention period, but compelling circumstances should exist for reviewing the opinion of the Board.

Detention order passed against the petitioners having been withdrawn after 17 days of passing of said order, the petitioners/detenus, demanded grant of monetary compensation for detention period at the rate of Rs.5,000 per day for each detenu

Validity

Plea was repelled with the observation that the question of legality of impugned detention order could not be gone into after release of the detenus simply for facilitating them to institute another proceeding against the detaining authority

After release of the petitioners during pendency of the petition, same had become infructuous and question of illegality of detention order would become only of the academic interest which could not be adjudicated upon with such reasons

Petition was dismissed, in cir­cumstances.

Speeches delivered by the accused as disclosed by the material available on record fell within the ambit of disturbance of public order

Registration of a criminal case against the accused did not by itself debar the Authority concerned from making an order of his detention when the acts of detention fell within the ambit of S.3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 read with Art.10 of the Constitution

Even otherwise an efficacious remedy provided under S.3(6) of the said Ordinance was available to accused which he should have availed preferably before resorting to the Constitutional relief

Order of detention was maintained in circumstances and the Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

When grounds of detention were not furnished to the detenu "as soon as may be" in terms of S:3 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, the detention order would be liable to be struck down on that ground alone

Only ground stated in the detention order was that "the accused was notorious criminal having been involved in many criminal cases and being at large is a live threat to the public peace and tranquillity of the District "

Such could hardly be treated as a valid ground for ordering preventive detention of the detenu

Continued detention of the detenu even after the expiry of the detention order without even a semblance of legal authority would amount to gross abuse of power affecting liberty of citizens

Detenu was ordered to be released forthwith.

Detention is rendered bad:

Petition challenging preventive detention on ground of non-application of mind Competent person to file.

Held, variation between two versions was not consequential and did not cause prejudice to detenu Detention could not be set aside on that basis.