Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Article 199) – Quashing of FIR – Investigation initiated with malafide intention or without jurisdiction. The High Court, under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, has the power to quash an FIR if it is found to be registered with malafide intent, beyond the jurisdiction of investigating authorities, or where no likelihood of conviction exists. This principle has been consistently upheld by the superior courts. (See: Anwar Ahmad Khan v. The State (1996 SCMR 24), Raja Rustam Ali Khan v. Muhammad Hanif (1997 SCMR 2008)) ------- 2. Penal provisions – Section 16 of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 – Requirements of fear or public disorder. To attract Section 16 of the Ordinance, it must be established that the accused made a speech, statement, or act likely to cause fear, alarm, or a breach of public safety or order. Mere participation in chanting slogans, without specifics of words used or their impact, does not meet the legal threshold. (See: The Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmad Khan (PLD 1974 SC 151)) ------- 3. Penal provisions – Section 341 PPC – Wrongful restraint – Human obstruction necessary. Section 341 PPC requires that the accused voluntarily obstructed a human being to prevent their movement. Mere disruption of traffic flow does not constitute wrongful restraint unless specific individuals are identified as being obstructed. (See: Mst. Riaz Bibi v. SHO Police Station Zahirpir (2002 P Cr.LJ 530)) ------- 4. Mens rea – Absence of intent – Essential element of crime. For an act to constitute a crime, the accused must have the requisite intent (mens rea). In this case, the petitioner was participating in a peaceful rally celebrating Independence Day without evidence of intent to disrupt public peace or order. Absence of mens rea negates the charges. (See: Sir Matthew Hale’s Principles on Mens Rea, R v. Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396) ------- 5. Fundamental rights – Right to peaceful assembly – Article 16 of the Constitution. Every citizen has the right to peaceful assembly without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law for public order. In the absence of Section 144 Cr.P.C. or evidence of violence or disruption, exercising this right cannot be curtailed. The impugned FIR disregarded this constitutional guarantee. (See: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416)) ------- 6. Quashing of FIR – Judicial oversight over investigative process. While the courts typically avoid interfering in ongoing investigations, they are empowered to intervene in cases of clear malafide intent or where the FIR lacks legal foundation. Judicial oversight ensures the protection of fundamental rights and the prevention of misuse of authority. (See: Muhammad Irshad Khan v. NAB Chairman (2007 P Cr.LJ 1957), Muhammad Bashir v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 139)) ------- Outcome: The petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR registered under Section 16 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, and Section 341 PPC was quashed. The court held that the FIR was based on political victimization, lacked the essential elements of the alleged offences, and violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10, 10(3) to 10(8), & 199(b)(1)--- Fundamental right to liberty---Preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)---Scope and judicial review---Petitioners, affiliated with a political party, were detained under orders of Deputy Commissioners on allegations of anti-state activities following political agitations on 9-5-2023---Contention raised that detention orders violated fundamental rights enshrined in Arts.9 & 10 of the Constitution---Held, that Art.9 guarantees protection of liberty, and no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law---Art.10 provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention; however, preventive detention under sub-articles (3) to (8) is an exception to these safeguards and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law---Detention orders, being subject to judicial review under Art.199(b)(1), must meet legal and constitutional standards---Impugned orders were passed without any substantive material, thereby failing to meet constitutional requirements---Petitions allowed. Cited Cases: • Begum Shorish Kashmiri case PLD 1969 SC 14 • Liaqat Ali case PLD 1999 SC 504 • Abdul Baqi Baluch case PLD 1968 SC 346 (b) Preventive Detention ----S.3, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)---Burden of proof---Scope of subjective satisfaction---Preventive detention cannot be ordered arbitrarily---Held, that while preventive detention requires satisfaction of the executive authority, such satisfaction must be based on credible material and not be arbitrary, capricious, or without basis---Detaining authority must demonstrate existence of material justifying detention, failing which the detention order is liable to be struck down---Impugned orders were passed on the basis of general allegations and political affiliations without substantiating material---No record was produced before the Court to justify the detention orders---Preventive detention, being an extraordinary measure, cannot be used as a substitute for criminal proceedings and must meet stringent legal standards. Cited Cases: • Shamas Din v. The State PLD 1997 SC 637 • Federation of Pakistan v. Ameer Hussain PLD 2023 LHC 204 (c) Public Order vs. Political Dissent ----Scope of preventive detention---Misuse of executive power---Held, that preventive detention under S.3, MPO, is intended for maintenance of public order and cannot be used to suppress political dissent---Concept of "public order" distinguished from "law and order" and "security of the state"---Public order signifies the even tempo of life in a community and must not be confused with politically motivated detentions---Impugned detention orders were issued against political workers based on allegations of participation in protests without any substantive evidence of actual or imminent breach of public order---Detentions were thus unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. Cited Cases: • Noor Muhammad v. Government PLD 2022 Pesh 187 • Anwar Ali v. The State 2021 SCMR 1283 (d) Burden of Proof in Preventive Detention Cases ----Standard of proof---Held, that burden of proof lies on the detaining authority to establish legality of the detention order---Authority must place before the Court the entire material on which satisfaction for detention was based---Mere production of detention orders is not sufficient---Detention orders must pass the test of reasonableness and objectivity---Failure to do so renders the detention illegal---In the present case, the detaining authorities failed to produce any evidence to justify the detention orders, which were consequently declared void. Cited Cases: • Khanan v. The State PLD 2020 SC 446 • Khurram Shahzad v. Government PLD 2019 SC 533 (e) International Human Rights Perspective ----Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art.9---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.9---Arbitrary detention---Pakistan’s international obligations---Held, that arbitrary detention without substantive justification is a violation of international human rights norms and Pakistan’s commitments under the ICCPR---International human rights law mandates that preventive detention must be based on clear, compelling evidence and should not be used as a means of political repression. Cited Cases: • Rizwanullah v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2021 SC 389 (f) Islamic Law Perspective ----Principles of Siyasah Shar’iyah---Fundamental rights in Islamic governance---Held, that an Islamic State cannot arbitrarily curtail individual freedoms and must act responsibly in securing public interest---Preventive detention laws should not be used as a tool for political suppression, as such use contradicts the principles of justice in Islamic law---Government action must align with principles of fairness and public welfare (Maslahah). Cited Cases: • Asif Gohar v. Government PLD 2018 SC 771 (g) Rule of Law and Limited Government ----Judicial review of executive action---Scope and limitations of preventive detention laws---Held, that rule of law requires that all persons, including the government, remain subject to legal constraints---Preventive detention laws must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law and must withstand judicial scrutiny---Courts are obligated to strike down orders that are arbitrary, vague, or issued without substantive material---In the present case, detention orders lacked legal and factual basis and were consequently declared void. Cited Cases: • Humayun v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2017 SC 539 (h) Conclusion and Disposition ----Preventive detention orders found illegal and unconstitutional---No substantive material was produced to justify the detention of the petitioners---Held, that the impugned orders were arbitrary, without lawful authority, and contrary to constitutional protections of liberty and due process---Petitions allowed---Detention orders set aside. Cited Cases: • Aftab Adam v. Government PLD 2023 Pesh 111

Summary: The petitioner sought a declaration of invalidity against the detention orders issued under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO, 1960). These orders were issued on July 25 and 26, 2024, for multiple individuals alleged to be affiliated with a political party, purportedly to maintain public peace and prevent disturbances. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy (representation/appeal) before the Secretary Home Department. 2- Whether the detention orders were legally justified and met the statutory requirements for depriving individuals of their liberty under Section 3(1) of the MPO, 1960. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Maintainability of the Petition: The court rejected the law officer's objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, stating that the detention orders were inherently defective. The alternate remedy was deemed inadequate and inefficacious to address the illegality and misuse of jurisdiction present in the case. --Justification of Detention Orders: The court found the detention orders to be based on broad-spectrum and general allegations, lacking specific facts or circumstances to justify the preventive detention. The orders contained repetitive and cliché expressions without tangible evidence or sufficient material to support the allegations. The previous criminal records of the detainees were not referred to in the detention orders or the letter by the District Police Officer. The mere registration of criminal cases does not justify preventive detention unless specific, compelling reasons are provided. The court emphasized that preventive detention laws must be construed strictly and any order must be supported by sufficient material to meet the exceptions to fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. The detention orders were declared illegal and of no legal effect. The court directed the immediate release of the detainees listed in Schedule-A, provided they were not required in any other criminal cases. ----Citations/Precedents "MRS. ARSHAD ALI KHAN. VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Home." (1994 SCMR 1532) "BEGUM NAZIR ABDUL HAMID. VS. PAKISTAN (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) THROUGH THE SECRETARY, INTERIOR, DIVISION ISLAMABAD and another." (PLD 1974 Lahore 7)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ---Arts. 9, 10A, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19A, 204, 175, and 199; Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance) Ss. 2(b), 3, 5, 6(1)(c) Fundamental rights—Rule of law vs. rule of men—Preventive detention orders issued under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (“MPO”)—Violation of fundamental rights and court orders. High-ranking public officials, including the District Magistrate Islamabad, Senior Superintendent of Police, and others, were found guilty of repeatedly issuing illegal detention orders under Section 3 of the MPO. These actions disregarded fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 9 (security of person), 10A (right to fair trial), and related provisions of the Constitution, as well as judicial directives from the Islamabad High Court and Lahore High Court. Despite multiple judicial pronouncements declaring such orders unconstitutional, the respondents continued issuing fresh detention orders targeting political opponents, specifically members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”), circumventing bail orders and judicial scrutiny. This practice was deemed a deliberate attempt to undermine the judiciary and the rule of law. The Court held that public officials must exercise powers conferred by law in good faith and within their legal bounds. Failure to adhere to constitutional principles amounts to “malice in law,” making the officials liable for contempt under Article 204(2)(a) and 204(2)(d) of the Constitution, read with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. (b) Contempt of Court: ---Art. 204(2)(a) & (d) of the Constitution; Ordinance Ss. 2(b) and 6 Obstruction of justice and contempt—Mens rea and actus reus in contempt—Responsibility of public officials in preventing course of justice. The Court found that the conduct of the District Magistrate and police officers amounted to deliberate obstruction of justice by issuing detention orders in violation of constitutional provisions and judicial orders. The judgment emphasized that the test for contempt focuses on the effect of actions, not the intent of contemnors. In this case, the cumulative effect of repeated and synchronized detention orders was to undermine public confidence in the judiciary and render judicial remedies ineffectual. The respondents’ actions caused “substantial detriment to the administration of justice,” warranting criminal contempt charges under Section 6 of the Ordinance. ----Cited Cases: State v. Khalid Masood (PLD 1996 SC 42) Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings against Daniyal Aziz (PLD 2018 SC 738) Syed Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (1998 PLD SC 823) State v. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (PLD 2023 Islamabad 145) (c) Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO): ---S. 3(1); Detention orders—Abuse of power by executive officials. The Court declared that preventive detention under MPO is permissible only when backed by material evidence demonstrating a genuine threat to public order. Repeated detention orders issued against the petitioner, were found to be devoid of such evidence. The Court highlighted that the MPO was used as a political tool to suppress dissent and circumvent judicial decisions, violating Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution. Such actions were held to constitute “fraud on the statute” and “colorable exercise of authority.” (d) Administration of Justice: ---Principles of rule of law—Public officials’ responsibility to uphold constitutional rights. The judgment reaffirmed that all public officials derive their authority from the Constitution and must exercise it as trustees of public power. Any act of public officials that undermines fundamental rights or the judiciary threatens the very foundations of constitutional democracy and the rule of law. The Court emphasized that judiciary and executive powers must operate within constitutional bounds to safeguard public trust in the administration of justice. (e) Disposition: Convictions and penalties for contempt of court. Respondent No. 1, DC Irfan Nawaz Memon: Sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,000. Respondent No. 2, SSP Malik Jameel Zafar: Sentenced to four months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,000. Respondent No. 4, SHO Nasir Manzoor: Sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100,000. The fine was to be distributed among detainees, except those implicated in sectarian violence. Sentences were suspended for 30 days to allow appeals. The Court further directed the Prime Minister to investigate whether the issuance of detention orders across the country followed an organized policy to undermine constitutional rights and judicial authority.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 9, 10, 16, 17, 19 & 184(3) Preventive detention—Fundamental right to liberty—Judicial scrutiny—Scope and limits of executive authority—Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention—Principle of proportionality—Rule of law—Government's discretionary power to detain individuals under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO) must conform to constitutional principles—Fundamental right to liberty, enshrined in Art. 9 of the Constitution, is inviolable unless restricted by due process—Art. 10 provides safeguards against arbitrary detention, ensuring detainees are informed of reasons, allowed legal representation, and produced before a magistrate—Preventive detention, as an exception to these rights, must be exercised with extreme caution—Detaining authority must substantiate its subjective satisfaction with sufficient material—Court held that mere suspicion or executive convenience cannot justify curtailment of liberty—Principle of proportionality demands that any restriction on fundamental rights must be the least intrusive means to achieve the objective—Courts have inherent power of judicial review under Art. 184(3) to strike down detention orders issued in contravention of constitutional safeguards—Impugned detention orders were found to be unlawful as no substantive material was presented to justify preventive detention—Petitions allowed, and detention orders set aside. Cited Cases: Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) In Re Suo Motu Constitutional Petition (1994 SCMR 1028) Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 388) Begum Shorish Kashmiri Case (PLD 1969 SC 14) Federation of Pakistan v. Mrs. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442)​ (b) Preventive Detention ----West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960—Scope and limitations Preventive detention under Section 3 of the MPO—Judicial review—Requirement of objective satisfaction—Executive's power to detain individuals must be based on tangible and reasonable grounds—Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as a tool against political dissent—Historical misuse of preventive detention laws in Pakistan to suppress political opposition noted—Courts must ensure that detention orders pass the test of reasonableness and necessity—In the absence of verifiable material justifying detention, such orders are liable to be struck down—Court observed that invocation of Section 3 of the MPO against political opponents raises serious concerns regarding abuse of executive authority—Preventive detention should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances where there is clear and immediate danger to public order—Detention orders in the present case failed to meet this threshold and were declared ultra vires the Constitution. Cited Cases: Ghulam Jilani v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1967 SC 373) Mir Abdul Baqi Baloch v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1968 SC 313) Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 78) Haroon Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan (2023 LHC 1450)​ (c) Fundamental Rights—Right to Protest ----Arts. 9, 16, 17, 19—Protest and public order Right to peaceful assembly and protest—State’s obligation to ensure balance between maintaining public order and protecting fundamental rights—Art. 16 guarantees the right to assemble peacefully—Art. 17 ensures the right to form associations and participate in political activities—Art. 19 protects freedom of speech and expression—State action restricting these rights must be proportional and the least restrictive measure available—Court relied on the Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) to reaffirm that the right to protest is a constitutional right that cannot be arbitrarily curtailed—Any restriction must be justified by concrete evidence showing a credible threat to public order—Court found that the detaining authorities in the present case failed to demonstrate such justification—Detention orders were struck down. Cited Cases: Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of Punjab (2020 CLC 157) Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642)​ (d) Rule of Law—Judicial Review ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 175—Judicial scrutiny of executive action Judicial review of preventive detention—Principles of natural justice—Burden of proof on detaining authority—Superior courts have repeatedly emphasized that preventive detention cannot be arbitrary or based on political considerations—Detaining authority must present substantive material justifying satisfaction for issuing detention orders—Court reiterated that rule of law requires executive decisions to be subject to judicial scrutiny—Arbitrary detention violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and access to justice under Art. 10A—Court applied strict scrutiny standard and found that the impugned detention orders did not meet constitutional and legal requirements—Orders declared null and void. Cited Cases: Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) Munir Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407) Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642)​ (e) Separation of Powers—Executive Overreach ----Arts. 90, 99—Delegation of power to executive authorities Limits on executive discretion—Scope of delegation of powers—Court observed that the delegation of detention powers under the MPO from provincial governments to district magistrates lacks constitutional validity—Excessive delegation of power to lower executive functionaries raises concerns about abuse—Court held that provincial and federal governments must establish clear guidelines to ensure that preventive detention is exercised in accordance with constitutional safeguards—Failure to do so results in executive overreach, warranting judicial intervention—Detention orders passed by district authorities were deemed unconstitutional and set aside. Cited Cases: Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) Federation of Pakistan v. Mustafa Impex (2016 SCMR 447)​ Disposition Petitions allowed—Impugned detention orders set aside—Government directed to ensure that preventive detention laws are not used as instruments of political suppression—Court emphasized that all future detention orders under the MPO must be based on concrete and verifiable evidence—State authorities instructed to respect constitutional rights while ensuring public order.

Summary: The petitioners were arrested following protests on May 9, 2023, which turned violent. The protests erupted in response to a high-profile political leader's arrest, leading to widespread clashes with law enforcement and significant damage to public and private property. Initially, the petitioners were detained under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO). After the MPO detention was revoked, they were re-arrested under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) on suspicion of being involved in the violence. The police sought a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to identify the petitioners. However, the TIP was delayed, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition, alleging deliberate delays aimed at keeping them in detention without due process. ----Issues: 1- Was the delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) a violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, and due process? 2- What measures should be implemented to prevent such delays and ensure adherence to legal procedures during pre-trial detention? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the delay in conducting the TIP violated the petitioners' fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 4, 9, 10, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan. It emphasized that pre-trial detention must be a last resort and handled expeditiously. The court outlined clear directives for ensuring the timely conduct of TIPs and preventing unnecessary detention: Magistrates' Orders: Area Magistrates must immediately forward orders for TIP to the Sessions Judge. Judicial Oversight: Sessions Judges must ensure that a Judicial Magistrate or Special Judicial Magistrate conducts the TIP within 48 hours. Accountability for Delays: If the TIP is delayed, the JM/SJM must report the matter to the Sessions Judge and relevant police authorities to prevent further delays. TIP Process: After the TIP, the JM/SJM must promptly submit a report, ensuring that the process is completed without undue delay. The court ordered that the petitioners’ TIP be conducted within two days and extended these procedural reforms to all Sessions Judges and Special Courts across the province. ----Citations/Precedents: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & others (AIR 2011 SC 312) Salman Rafique & another v. National Accountability Bureau & others (PLD 2020 SC 456) Mohammed-Holgate v. Duke (1984 [1 All ER 1054]) Ch. Muhammad Anwar v. Government of West Pakistan (PLD 1963 Lahore 109) Hostages in Tehran case (ICJ Reports 1980, p. 42, para. 91) Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah v. The State (PLD 2022 SC 261) Asghar Ali alias Sabah & others v. The State (1992 SCMR 2088) The State v. Farman Hussain & others (PLD 1995 SC 1) Khawand Bux & others v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 280) Ghulam Nabi v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 349) Saifullah v. The State (2018 MLD 751)

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the detention of his brother, Zeeshan Razzaq, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Narowal based on the recommendations of the District Police Officer (DPO). The petitioner argued that the detention was unjustified and lacked any solid evidence or material against the detainee. -----Issues: 1- Whether the detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, was justified and based on sufficient evidence. 2- Whether the petitioner's failure to file a representation before the Government of Punjab affected the maintainability of the writ petition. 3- Whether the apprehensions and recommendations by the DPO were sufficient grounds for the detention. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----Detention Order Justification: The court found that the detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner was based merely on the recommendations of the DPO without any solid or cogent evidence. The allegations against Zeeshan Razzaq were general and lacked specific material, such as audio/video recordings or written transcripts of the alleged speeches. The court emphasized that mere apprehensions without valid reasons or supporting evidence cannot justify curtailing an individual's liberty. ----Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The objection raised by the Assistant Advocate General regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the non-filing of a representation before the Government of Punjab was overruled. The court highlighted that the right to file a habeas corpus petition is a constitutional remedy available for addressing illegal confinement, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Relevant case law, such as "Muhammad Irshad versus Government of the Punjab" (2020 P Cr.L J 206) and "Abdul Rauf versus Govt. of Punjab" (2023 LHC 2697), was cited to support this position. ----Apprehensions and Recommendations by the DPO: The court noted that the DPO's recommendations were based on mere apprehensions without any substantial evidence. The report did not provide any material to establish that the detainee was acting or about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety or order. The Assistant Advocate General was unable to produce any evidence that Zeeshan Razzaq was a member of any banned group or involved in anti-state activities. The lack of any criminal case registered against the detainee further weakened the grounds for detention. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Irshad versus Government of the Punjab and others, 2020 P Cr.L J 206: Emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in habeas corpus matters. Abdul Rauf versus Govt. of Punjab, 2023 LHC 2697: Reiterated the maintainability of habeas corpus petitions despite alternative remedies. Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur, 1999 PCr.LJ 2014: Established that the failure to make a representation before the provincial government does not bar the filing of a writ petition. Mst. Sana Jamil v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary and 5 others, 2016 PCr.LJ 424: Supported the maintainability of constitutional petitions in cases of illegal confinement. Syed Mubbashar Raza v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Home Department and 2 others, PLD 2015 Lahore 20: Highlighted the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court in habeas corpus matters. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal versus Sadozai Khan and two others, 2021 YLR 1206: Stressed the importance of adhering to legal procedures and requirements. Maqsood Yameen versus R.P.O. Multan and others, 2015 PCr.LJ 923: Emphasized the necessity of valid reasons and supporting evidence for detentions.

Summary: ''Before passing detention order, the competent authority must have reasons to believe that said person within his territorial jurisdiction has acted, is acting or is about to act in a manner which is prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order'' ----- (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10A, 13(a), 199 Fundamental right to liberty—Preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)—Judicial review of executive action—Petitioner challenged the detention orders of his brothers, Abdul Rehman alias Mooni and Nasir Malik, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, under S.3, MPO—Contention raised that the impugned orders violated constitutional protections under Arts. 4, 9, and 10A, as they were issued without any substantive evidence or material—Held, that liberty is a fundamental right, and no person shall be deprived of it except in accordance with law—Art.10A guarantees the right to a fair trial, and any executive order infringing this right must be subject to judicial scrutiny—Detention based on mere police recommendations, without specific evidence demonstrating an imminent threat to public order, is unconstitutional—Court held that mere apprehension without valid reason or cogent material cannot justify preventive detention—Impugned orders were declared illegal and set aside. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Irshad v. Government of Punjab (2020 P Cr. L J 206) • Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014) • Mst. Sana Jamil v. Government of Punjab (2016 P Cr. L J 424) • Syed Mubbashar Raza v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2015 Lahore 20) (b) Preventive Detention—Scope and Judicial Review ----S.3, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 Preventive detention—Judicial review—Requirement of objective satisfaction—Burden of proof on detaining authority—Held, that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure meant to prevent imminent threats to public safety, not a tool for arbitrary or punitive detention—Detaining authority must demonstrate through substantive material that the detenus are currently engaged in or preparing to engage in activities prejudicial to public order—Mere reliance on police recommendations or vague allegations is insufficient to justify preventive detention—Court observed that no independent material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention, apart from the police reports—Held, that preventive detention in such circumstances is an abuse of executive power—Impugned orders were declared unlawful and set aside. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Sadozai Khan (2021 YLR 1206) • Maqsood Yameen v. R.P.O. Multan (2015 P Cr. L J 923) (c) Public Order vs. Law and Order ----Interpretation of “public order” in preventive detention cases Distinction between public order, law and order, and security of the State—Held, that preventive detention under S.3, MPO, is justified only when an individual poses an immediate and significant threat to public order—Public order refers to disturbances affecting society at large, not individual criminal conduct—Court reiterated that “law and order” concerns individual acts, whereas “public order” relates to broader societal disruption—Detaining authorities failed to establish that the detenus had engaged in any activities prejudicial to public safety—Allegations in FIR No. 250/2023 registered against the detenus under Ss. 341, 188, 147, and 149, PPC were held to be separate criminal matters and could not be used to justify preventive detention—Held, that pending criminal cases must be dealt with through due process, and preventive detention cannot serve as an alternative mechanism to criminal prosecution—Impugned orders were declared unlawful. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) (d) Absence of Evidence—Violation of Due Process ----Burden of proof on detaining authority—Subjective satisfaction must be based on tangible evidence Held, that executive authorities must substantiate their decision to detain an individual under preventive detention laws—In the present case, apart from the District Police Officer’s report, no independent material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention—Mere apprehension or suspicion, without any tangible proof of involvement in anti-State activities or incitement to violence, is insufficient to justify deprivation of liberty—Court emphasized that preventive detention must meet strict legal requirements and should not be used arbitrarily—Impugned orders were declared illegal and set aside. Cited Cases: • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) • Munir Hussain Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407) (e) Principle of Fair Trial and Double Jeopardy ----Arts. 10A & 13(a), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Preventive detention based on pending criminal cases—Violation of fair trial principles—Double jeopardy—Held, that a person facing trial in criminal cases cannot be detained under preventive detention laws based on the same allegations—Such detention amounts to double jeopardy, violating Art. 13(a) of the Constitution—Art.10A guarantees the right to due process, and executive action that undermines this right is unconstitutional—Court reaffirmed that an accused person must be tried through due process of law, and preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative to criminal prosecution—Detention of the petitioner’s brothers, solely based on a pending FIR, was held to be in violation of constitutional protections and was struck down. Cited Cases: • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) (f) Executive Overreach and Limited Government ----Arts. 90, 99, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Judicial review of executive discretion—Misuse of preventive detention laws—Held, that executive authorities must exercise their power within constitutional and legal limits—Preventive detention laws must not be used arbitrarily, and courts have the duty to intervene where fundamental rights are violated—Deputy Commissioner’s order lacked independent reasoning and was based solely on police recommendations, which is insufficient justification for curtailing personal liberty—Court reiterated that excessive delegation of detention powers to administrative authorities must be subject to strict judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse—Detention orders lacking lawful basis are liable to be struck down. Cited Cases: • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) • Federation of Pakistan v. Mustafa Impex (2016 SCMR 447) (g) Disposition Impugned detention orders found illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful justification—Preventive detention must be based on substantive grounds affecting public order rather than pending criminal charges—No reasonable apprehension of public disorder established—Impugned orders set aside—Petition allowed, and detenus ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of his father under Order No. DC/GA/535/CNF dated 11.05.2023, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Wazirabad. The detention was based on the apprehension of potential harm or breach of peace, allegedly linked to unrest following political developments. The petitioner argued that the detention order lacked reasonable grounds or supporting evidence of any specific activity prejudicial to public safety. ----Issues: 1- Whether the preventive detention order issued under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, without sufficient supporting material, is legal and valid. 2- Whether the government can impose preventive detention in the absence of an ongoing law-and-order situation and without proper evidence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Lack of Evidence: The court found that the detention order was issued without any substantial evidence to support the claim that the detenu was involved in any activity prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order. The report submitted by the SHO was deemed insufficient as it did not include any material such as social media messages, call records, or other tangible evidence. Violation of Rights: The court emphasized that the government had acted hastily, without applying proper legal standards or collecting evidence. The petitioner’s father’s detention was found to be a violation of fundamental rights, specifically the right to dignity (Article 14) and the right to due process (Article 10-A) as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan. Court's Conclusion: The court declared the detention order illegal, noting that it violated Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The court ordered the immediate release of the detainee and imposed a daily cost of Rs. 5000 for each day of detention, payable to the petitioner’s father. ----Citations/Precedents: Government of East Pakistan vs. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan (PLD 1966 SC 286) Muhammad Abdaal alias Abdali vs. Government of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 471) Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Islamabad vs. Mrs. Amtul Jalil Khawaja and others (PLD 2003 SC 442) Muhammad Irshad vs. Government of Punjab and others (2020 P Cr. L J 206) Shahid Rasool vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary Home Department, Lahore, and others (2023 YLR 333) Hafiz Ali Raza vs. Deputy Commissioner, Lahore (2023 LHC 1304) Government of Sindh vs. Mst. Najma (2001 SCMR 8) State through Advocate-General, Sindh, Karachi vs. Mst. Taji Bibi (2002 SCMR 914)

Summary: A petitioner challenged a preventive detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, detaining 13 individuals based on allegations of subversive activities aimed at inciting public disorder through protests. The petitioner argued that no substantive material supported the preventive detention and that the detainees were not informed of the grounds for detention, nor were they allowed access to legal counsel or family. The respondents justified the detention, claiming it was necessary for maintaining public order, as the detainees were politically active and involved in disruptive activities. -----Issues: 1- Whether the preventive detention order was arbitrary and violated the detainees' fundamental rights. 2- Whether sufficient material existed to justify the preventive detention under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. 3- Whether the court had the jurisdiction to review the validity of the preventive detention order. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found the detention order to be arbitrary and unsupported by sufficient evidence. It highlighted that preventive detention must be based on credible, tangible material, such as social media evidence, surveillance reports, or other concrete sources. The respondents failed to provide such material, despite being given multiple opportunities. Additionally, the court held that mere assertions or suspicions could not justify preventive detention, and conjecture could not replace substantive proof. The court further reasoned that preventive detention laws must be strictly adhered to, with the burden on the detaining authority to demonstrate the legality and necessity of such orders. In this case, the grounds provided were vague, and the detainees had not been informed of their rights as mandated by law. The court concluded that the detention was a violation of the detainees' constitutional rights to liberty and due process. As a result, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detainees. -----Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Islamabad v. Mrs. Amtul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) Muhammad Irshad v. Government of the Punjab (2020 P Cr. L J 206) Shahid Rasool v. Government of the Punjab (2023 YLR 333) Muhammad Abdaal alias Abdali v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2020 Lahore 471) Sheikh Muhammad Musa v. Government of East Pakistan (1969 P Cr. L J 862) Purnendu Dastigar v. Government of East Pakistan (1970 P Cr. L J 11) The Government of East Pakistan v. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan (PLD 1966 SC 286) Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 694) Government of Sindh and others v. Mst. Najma (2001 SCMR 8) State v. Mst. Taji Bibi (2002 SCMR 914) Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014)