Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ----Arts. 20, 19 & 199—Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 5(1)(d)—Freedom of religion and speech—Reasonable restrictions—Scope—Petitioner's entry into District Lahore was restricted by Deputy Commissioner under the Punjab MPO to prevent potential threat to law and order—Petitioner claimed violation of fundamental rights under Arts. 20 & 19 of the Constitution—Held, rights under Arts. 20 & 19 are not absolute and are subject to law, public order, and morality—State functionaries have discretion to take preventive actions to ensure public safety and peace—Such executive orders, based on subjective assessments of law and order threats, are not justiciable under Art. 199 of the Constitution—Constitution permits regulation of religious and speech freedoms where necessary in the public interest. (b) Preventive orders under Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance—Nature and judicial review ----Deputy Commissioner’s authority under S. 5(1) of the MPO Ordinance includes power to restrict individual movement in public interest—Held, such orders, though subject to representation under S. 5(5), cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction where alternate remedy exists—Court emphasized administrative autonomy of public officials to act on threat perception, and declined to intervene. (c) Alternate remedy—Maintainability of constitutional petition ----Where alternate efficacious remedy is available, constitutional petition is not maintainable—Petitioner challenged restriction order without first availing representation remedy under S. 5(5) of the MPO Ordinance—Petition dismissed as premature. (d) Judicial restraint—Non-interference in executive discretion relating to public order ----Court reiterated that assessment of law and order threats is primarily the domain of the executive—Unless mala fide or ultra vires action is shown, courts will not substitute their own opinion—Precedents cited include Hubdar Hussain Malik v. Deputy Commissioner (2020 SCMR 1507) and Zaheeruddin v. The State (1993 SCMR 1718). Disposition: Petition dismissed—Petitioner advised to avail alternate statutory remedy before Deputy Commissioner.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10A, 13, 199 Preventive detention—Fundamental right to liberty—Judicial review of executive action—Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention—Scope of public order vis-à-vis individual liberty—Petitioner challenged the detention of Hafiz Saad Hussain Rizvi, Ameer of Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP), under S.3, Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO), ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, on recommendations of intelligence reports alleging that the detenue incited protests and threatened public order—Contention raised that the impugned order violated constitutional protections under Arts.4, 9, and 10A, as it was passed without independent application of mind and without substantive evidence—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 scrutinized—Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and cannot be used arbitrarily—Court reaffirmed that judicial review under Art.199 is available to challenge detention orders—However, in the present case, intelligence reports substantiated that the detenue's activities posed a real and immediate threat to public order—Preventive detention orders, being based on credible evidence, were upheld as lawful. Cited Cases: • Federation of Pakistan v. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) • Ismaeel v. The State (2010 SCMR 27) • Begum Nazir Abdul Hamid v. Pakistan (Federal Government) (PLD 1974 Lahore 7) (b) Preventive Detention—Scope and Judicial Review ----S.3, Punjab 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 exceptional measure meant to prevent imminent threats to public safety, not a punitive action against political figures—Executive authorities must demonstrate through substantive material that the detenu is currently engaged in or preparing to engage in activities prejudicial to public order—Mere past conduct or political association is insufficient to justify preventive detention—Court, however, noted that the intelligence reports and security assessments established that the detenue had incited protests, advocated civil disorder, and posed an imminent threat to public safety—Court held that preventive detention, in this case, was justified under S.3, MPO, as an urgent measure to prevent chaos and lawlessness—Detention orders were upheld. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Siddiq Khan v. District Magistrate (PLD 1992 Lahore 140) • Sheikh Rashid Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Rawalpindi (PLJ 2004 Lahore 1221) (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 only justified 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—Intelligence reports indicated that the detenue had instigated protests, leading to attacks on public and private property, injuries to law enforcement officers, and disruption of essential services—Held, that these activities met the threshold for preventive detention under public order considerations—Court dismissed the petition, holding that preventive detention was necessary to maintain peace. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) (d) Alternative Remedy—Maintainability of Writ Petition ----S.3(6), Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 Alternative remedy before Home Department—Maintainability of writ petition under Art.199—Held, that the availability of a remedy under S.3(6), MPO, does not bar constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution—Constitutional Courts are empowered to strike down illegal detention orders irrespective of alternate remedies—However, when an alternative remedy is adequate and effective, courts may require its exhaustion before exercising judicial review—Court observed that, in this case, a representation under S.3(6) of MPO was available, but its mere existence did not preclude the High Court’s jurisdiction—Court exercised its discretion and reviewed the case on its merits—Held, that since the detention order was lawfully issued based on credible intelligence, no interference was warranted. Cited Cases: • Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1984 Lahore 222) • Federation of Pakistan v. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) (e) Executive Discretion and Judicial Restraint ----Arts. 90, 99, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Judicial review of executive discretion—Scope and limitations—Preventive detention orders passed by the executive are subject to judicial review but cannot be treated as appeals—Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the executive unless the order is found to be mala fide, arbitrary, or based on no evidence—Held, that the role of the judiciary is to ensure that preventive detention laws are exercised within constitutional and legal bounds—In the present case, the executive provided sufficient material justifying the detenue’s detention as a necessary measure to prevent imminent public disorder—Court reaffirmed the principle that judicial review should not interfere with lawful executive discretion unless a clear abuse of power is demonstrated—Detention order upheld. Cited Cases: • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) • Federation of Pakistan v. Mustafa Impex (2016 SCMR 447) (f) 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 violates international human rights norms and Pakistan’s commitments under the ICCPR—However, international law recognizes that preventive detention may be justified in cases of national security or public order threats, provided legal safeguards are observed—Court held that in the present case, the detenue’s detention complied with legal requirements and was not arbitrary—International human rights obligations were not violated. Cited Cases: • Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) (g) Disposition Writ petition dismissed—Preventive detention orders found to be lawful and justified—Held, that preventive detention was necessary to maintain public order and prevent further violence—Executive discretion exercised within legal parameters—No interference warranted—Detention order upheld.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 251 of 2020, Alamgir Khan, the petitioner, sought admission to bail after being arrested on December 1, 2019. He was accused of delivering an inflammatory speech at a rally on November 29, 2019, on the Mall Road in Lahore. The speech allegedly incited participants against state institutions.---Issues:Whether Alamgir Khan's speech constituted sedition under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code.Whether Alamgir Khan's release on bail would jeopardize public peace, security, and tranquility.Whether Alamgir Khan's right to freedom of speech was violated, considering the reasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the Constitution.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court recognized freedom of speech as a fundamental right under the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. The determination of whether Alamgir Khan's speech violated these restrictions would be best decided by the trial court after considering the full context of the discourse.Despite the serious nature of the charges, the petitioner's status as a student and the lack of usefulness in his continued incarceration led the Court to grant bail. The Court emphasized the importance of the state being tolerant of dissent and criticism from its citizens, even if expressed crudely or emotionally.The criminal petition was converted into an appeal, and Alamgir Khan was granted release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 100,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate.---Citations/Precedents:Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1960Punjab Sound Systems (Regulations) Act, 2015Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Article 19

Summary: Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)-------S. 16---Constitution of Pakistan, 1962, Art. 225---Vires of law---Maintenance of publicorder---Petitioner sought annulment of Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance,1960 as being ultra vires Constitution--- Validity--- If authorities were satisfied on receipt ofcredible information that a person was involved in anti-State activities BalochistanMaintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was to regulate arrest and detention of suchculprit and in case against whom such order of arrest and detention had been passed waswithin such officer's jurisdiction, that officer could arrest that person without a warrant insame manner as he would have done for period not exceeding three months---Legislature hadvalidated provisions of Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 under Art.225 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1962---Petition, in the present case, was outcome ofcontinuous arrest and detention of petitioner however, it could not be termed that BalochistanMaintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 was ultra vires Constitution---For violation offundamental rights protected under Constitution, every citizen could invoke jurisdiction ofcompetent court of law for redressal of his grievance---Constitutional petition was dismissedin circumstances.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)-------S. 3---Preventive detention---Satisfaction of Government---Objective satisfaction---Scope---Petitioner assailed order of his detention under S. 3(1) of Balochistan Maintenanceof Public Order Ordinance, 1960---Petitioner was detained for being a potential threat to thepublic safety and for provoking the general masses against the State---Validity---Governmenthad to be satisfied, in order to arrest and detain a person under section 3(1) of BalochistanMaintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, that the activities of such person wereprejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order---No sufficient cause wasavailable to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner---Satisfaction of governmenthad to be objective in nature and not subjective or of such nature as to allow the authoritiesto act on whims and caprices without there being any material before them in support of thegrounds for preventive detention---Grounds mentioned by the authorities for preventivedetention 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.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts. 4, 9 & 199--- Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law---Securityof person---Judicial review---Scope---Any action by the Government or any of itsfunctionary depriving or restricting the liberty of a citizen without sufficient cause is notenvisaged by the Constitution---Any such action taken by the Government or any of itsfunctionary will not be immune from scrutiny of High Court in exercise of its powers underArt. 199 of the Constitution.(c) Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)-------S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Preventive detention---Judicial review---Scope---High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review under Art. 199 of theConstitution, can examine the validity of the detention order passed under S. 3(1) ofBalochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 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 order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Multan, under S.3, MPO, detaining the father of the petitioner on the ground of his alleged past criminal activities—Contention raised that impugned order violated constitutional protections under Arts. 4, 9, and 10A, as it was passed without application of independent mind and without substantive evidence—Held, that liberty is a fundamental right, and no person shall be deprived of it except in accordance with the law—Art.10A guarantees the right to a fair trial, and any executive order infringing this right must be scrutinized—Detention based on mere past criminal record, without any present material demonstrating imminent threat to public order, is unconstitutional—Court, under Art.199, has the power to review such orders and strike them down if found lacking legal justification—Impugned order was declared unconstitutional and was set aside. Cited Cases: • Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014) • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) (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 exceptional measure meant to prevent imminent threats to public safety, not to be used as a punitive measure for past criminal activities—Detaining authority must demonstrate with substantive material that the detenu is currently engaged in or preparing to engage in activities prejudicial to public order—Mere reference to past criminal cases is not sufficient to justify preventive detention—Court observed that impugned order was based solely on a report from the City Police Officer (CPO), Multan, and lacked independent reasoning by the Deputy Commissioner—Such orders, based on conjecture and without material evidence, violate constitutional protections and are liable to be struck down. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sana Jamil v. Government of Punjab (2016 P Cr. L J 424) • Syed Mubbashar Raza v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2015 Lahore 20) • Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 78) (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 only justified 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—Allegations against the petitioner’s father were general in nature, and no cogent evidence was produced to show that his actions were prejudicial to public safety—Held, that registration of past criminal cases, without specific allegations of recent unlawful activity, does not warrant preventive detention—Impugned order was found to be excessive and lacking legal justification. 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 CPO’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 as a tool for arbitrary imprisonment—Impugned order was 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 past 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 father, solely based on his past criminal record, 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 reports, 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 order found illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful justification—Preventive detention must be based on substantive grounds affecting public order rather than past criminal charges—No reasonable apprehension of public disorder established—Impugned order set aside—Petition allowed, and detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 2A, 3, 4, 9, 10A, 14, 18 & 199--- Fundamental right to liberty---Preventive detention under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (MPO)---Judicial review of executive authority---Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention---Scope of public order vis-à-vis individual liberty---Petitioner challenged detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, under S.3(1), MPO, detaining the detenu for 30 days on the ground that multiple cases were registered against him---Contention raised that impugned order violated constitutional protections of life, liberty, and due process as guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution---Held, that liberty is an inalienable right, and detention must conform to the principles of legality, proportionality, and necessity---Courts have inherent power under Art.199 to examine executive action restricting liberty---Detention cannot be justified solely on the pendency of criminal cases, as fair trial principles require adjudication by a competent court---Impugned order was found to be unconstitutional, lacking substantive justification, and was set aside. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014) • Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 Lahore 484) (b) Preventive Detention—Scope and Judicial Review ----S.3, Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960--- Preventive detention---Requirement of objective satisfaction---Burden of proof on detaining authority---Held, that preventive detention laws must be exercised in exceptional circumstances where there is immediate danger to public order---Preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative to criminal prosecution---The detaining authority must place before the Court substantive material justifying subjective satisfaction regarding preventive detention---Pendency of criminal cases alone does not justify detention under S.3, MPO, especially when the accused is already facing trial in those cases---Held, that no reasonable or sufficient cause was available for detention, and the impugned order lacked lawful justification. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sana Jamil v. Government of Punjab (2016 P Cr. L J 424) • Syed Mubbashar Raza v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2015 Lahore 20) • Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 78) (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 not every disturbance of law and order amounts to a threat to public order---Public order refers to a situation affecting the community at large rather than individual criminal acts---Petitioner’s detention was ordered based on registration of eight cases against him, but none of them pertained to offenses affecting public tranquility or security---Court reaffirmed the principle that mere involvement in criminal cases does not constitute a public order situation warranting preventive detention. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) • Faizabad Dharna Case (PLD 2019 SC 318) (d) Availability of Alternate Remedy—Writ Jurisdiction ----S.3(6), Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960--- Availability of alternate remedy before Home Department---Maintainability of writ petition---Held, that the availability of a remedy under S.3(6), MPO, does not bar constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution---Constitutional Courts are empowered to strike down illegal detention orders irrespective of alternate remedies---Reliance placed on precedents where it was held that the mere existence of a remedy before the Home Department does not preclude High Court jurisdiction in cases of fundamental rights violations. Cited Cases: • Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1984 Lahore 222) • Azad Papers (Jasarat) v. Province of Sindh (PLD 1974 Karachi 81) (e) Principle of Fair Trial and Double Jeopardy ----Arts. 10A & 13, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--- Detention order based on pending criminal cases—Violation of fair trial and due process principles---Double jeopardy---Held, that a person facing trial cannot be detained merely due to pendency of cases, as such detention would amount to double jeopardy, violating Art.13 of the Constitution---Fair trial under Art.10A mandates that every accused must be tried by a competent court rather than being preemptively detained by the executive---Impugned detention order was found to be in clear violation of constitutional protections. 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 cannot use preventive detention as a substitute for due process---Court reiterated that excessive delegation of power to local administrative officers raises concerns of misuse and arbitrariness---The power to detain individuals must be exercised within strict legal parameters to prevent executive overreach---Detention orders passed without objective justification 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 order found illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful justification---Preventive detention must be based on substantive grounds affecting public order rather than individual criminal charges---No reasonable apprehension of public disorder established---Impugned order set aside---Petition allowed, and detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Provincial Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)-------S. 3---Arrest and detention of suspected person--- Prejudice to public order---Scope---Act/Activity complained of a person must be an act prejudicial to public order and itsoutcome or its result directly affects public at large---When such act or activity of a person isthere, Provincial Government or person authorized in that behalf, has ample material in thisregard to take action or pass order under S.3 of Provincial Maintenance of Public OrderOrdinance, 1960 and same would be within theme of law--- Where an act or activity isperson specific and does not amount to an activity prejudicial to public peace and tranquility,in no way be encompassed within sphere of Provincial Maintenance of Public OrderOrdinance, 1960, and same would be entirely out of scope of law.Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sindh PLD 1973 Kar. 78 and Masal Khan v. DistrictMagistrate PLD 1997 Pesh. 148 rel.(b) Provincial Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)-------S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10 & 199---Constitutional petition---Liberty ofperson---Detention, extension of---Anti-social activities--- Proof--- Petitioner was detainedby authorities on anti-social activities and his detention was extended from time to time---Validity---Person could not be detained or his liberty curtailed without reasonable materialbecause liberty of a person was guaranteed by the Constitution and High Court whileexercising Constitutional jurisdiction was duty bound to satisfy itself that person was notbeing held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner---After obtainingsurety from petitioner regarding showing good character and ordering release of petitioner,there was no occasion with authorities to withdraw same that too prior to release of petitionermerely on basis of suspicion, presumption and speculation---Order in question passed byauthorities did not carry reasonable substantial material required for detention of petitionerand curbing his liberty and freedom---Showing reasons and grounds while passing detentionorder was duty of authorities---High Court under Constitutional jurisdiction was bound to scrutinize material furnished by detaining authorities for detention of any individual---Orderpassed by authorities regarding extending detention of petitioner was illegal, unlawful,without lawful authority, arbitrary, perverse and of no legal effect and set aside same---HighCourt directed the authorities that petitioner be released from jail---Constitutional petitionwas allowed in circumstances.Liaquat Ali v. Government of Sindh PLD 1973 Kar. 78 and Masal Khan v. DistrictMagistrate PLD 1997 Pesh. 148 rel.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10A, 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 order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra, under S.3, MPO—Contention raised that the order was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and issued without any substantial evidence—Held, that liberty is a fundamental right, and no person shall be deprived of it except in accordance with law—Art.9 guarantees security of the person and mandates that deprivation of liberty must be strictly in accordance with the law—Court observed that preventive detention must be justified by cogent and tangible material, failing which it becomes unconstitutional—Mere registration of FIRs against the detenus is not sufficient ground for preventive detention—Executive authorities must apply their independent mind rather than mechanically issuing detention orders based on police recommendations—Impugned order was declared illegal and struck down. Cited Cases: • Federation of Pakistan v. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Sadozai Khan (2021 YLR 1206) • Maqsood Yameen v. R.P.O. Multan (2015 P Cr. L J 923) (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—Executive authorities 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 reports 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: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • 2004 MLD 1541 • 2004 P Cr. L J 1604 (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 FIRs registered against the detenus 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) (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) (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 solely based on past criminal cases was held to be in violation of constitutional protections and was struck down. Cited Cases: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • PLD 2003 SC 442 (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 order 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 order set aside—Petition allowed, and detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10, 10A, 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 order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra, under S.3, MPO, on the ground that it was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and without lawful authority—Held, that liberty is a fundamental right, and no person shall be deprived of it except in accordance with the law—Art.9 guarantees the security of the person and mandates that deprivation of liberty must be strictly in accordance with the law—Court observed that preventive detention must be justified by cogent and tangible material, failing which it becomes unconstitutional—No material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention, apart from the police reports—Executive authorities must apply their independent mind rather than mechanically issuing detention orders—Impugned order was declared illegal and set aside. Cited Cases: • Federation of Pakistan v. Amatul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) • Muhammad Zafar Iqbal v. Sadozai Khan (2021 YLR 1206) • Maqsood Yameen v. R.P.O. Multan (2015 P Cr. L J 923) (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—Executive authorities 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 reports 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 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: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • 2004 MLD 1541 • 2004 P Cr. L J 1604 (c) Use of Preventive Detention Instead of Criminal Prosecution—Legality ----Preventive detention vs. criminal prosecution—Misuse of S.3, MPO Held, that preventive detention is not a substitute for proper legal proceedings—Petitioner was accused of chronic timber smuggling, an offense that falls under the ambit of existing criminal laws—Authorities should have proceeded under the relevant laws and, upon conviction, imposed appropriate punishment—Court criticized the tendency of administrative authorities to use preventive detention as a "quick-fix" solution rather than prosecuting alleged offenders under applicable laws—Held, that merely invoking preventive detention provisions without pursuing prosecution renders the entire process illegal—Court declared that preventive detention should not be used in cases where criminal statutes already provide a remedy—Impugned order was set aside. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Arshad Ali Khan v. Government of Punjab (1994 SCMR 1532) (d) 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 petitioner had engaged in any activities prejudicial to public safety—Allegations against the petitioner regarding timber smuggling 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 order was declared unlawful. Cited Cases: • PLD 2010 Lahore 484 (e) 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 Divisional Forest Officer’s request and the police reports, 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) (f) 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 solely based on past criminal cases was held to be in violation of constitutional protections and was struck down. Cited Cases: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • PLD 2003 SC 442 (g) 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) (h) Disposition Impugned detention order 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 order set aside—Petition allowed, and petitioner ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.