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)—Petitioners challenged their detention 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—Court observed that administrative authorities cannot invoke preventive detention laws as a substitute for criminal prosecution—Detention orders issued without tangible evidence of threat to public safety were 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) (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—Deputy Commissioner issued detention orders solely on police reports without assessing whether the requirements of S.3, MPO, were met—Court observed that such orders, issued mechanically without independent reasoning, violate constitutional protections—Impugned orders declared unlawful and set aside. Cited Cases: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • 2004 MLD 1541 (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—Petitioners were either facing trial or had already been convicted in separate criminal cases—Court ruled that resorting to preventive detention in such circumstances amounted to double jeopardy and was therefore illegal—Preventive detention must be applied before an offense is committed, not as an additional punishment for ongoing criminal cases—Held, that detention orders issued in such a manner are unconstitutional and must be 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 observed that administrative authorities routinely misuse preventive detention laws to create a false perception of law enforcement—Held, that failure to distinguish between law and order and public order renders the detention orders legally unsustainable—Orders were declared void. 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, no credible material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention apart from police reports—Mere apprehension or suspicion, without any substantial proof, 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 petitioners 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 orders lacked independent reasoning and were 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 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—Petitions allowed, and petitioners 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, Haripur, 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—Deputy Commissioner relied solely on the report of the District Police Officer (DPO) without independent application of mind—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—Deputy Commissioner issued the detention order based solely on the police report without independently assessing whether the requirements of S.3, MPO, were met—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 order was 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 narcotics offenses and other criminal charges, which fall 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 narcotics offenses 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 police 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 order was 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.

Summary: PLJ 2003 Peshawar 62 (DB) Present Ms KHALIDA RACHID AND MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN JJ QAZI HUSSAIN AHMAD - Petitioner versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF NW PP HOME and TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT PESHAWAR 10 others - Respondents WP No 1400 of 2001 decided oil 28112001 (i) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 - - - S 3 (6) - Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art 199 - Detention of petitioner for a period of thirty days assailed - Taking advantage of September 11 2001 attack on USA some religious groups tried to gain mileage for themselves and for their political parties without realizing fact that their action would turn such vulnerable situation into disaster - Apprehending breach of public peace and tranquility and to prevent evil elements imperiling security and causing anarchy Government had sufficient and justifiable reasons for making preventive order within parameter of law which could in no way be termed as mala fide [P 65] A (ii) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 - S 3 (6) Petitioners detention for a period of one month - - Justification for - Speeches delivered by petitioner disclosed by material available on record would fall within ambit of disturbance of public orders - Registration of case for prosecution and preventive detentions are independent of each otherObject of prosecution is to punish a person for something he has done while purpose of preventive detention isto prevent him from doing the act - Registration ot case would not by itself debar Authority from making order of detention when act of detention fall within ambit of S 3 Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 read with Art 10 of Constitution [P 66] B (iii) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 - - S 3 (b) - Constitutioh of Pakistan (1973) Art 199 - Remedy of making representation to Government was available to petitioner but he did not avail that remedy on the pretext that same was not efficacious - Such plea of petitioner has little weight - When legislature provides remedy within law itself that remedy should be availed (preferably before resorting to constitutional relief - Order of detention was sustained in the circumstances [P 67] C 19S4 SCMR 1532 AIR 1974 SC 2154 and AIR 1973 SC 1062 reI Mr Muhammad Anf Khan Advocate for Petitioner Qazi Rashid - ul - Haq Advocate General for StateJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: The applicants were accused of delivering speeches at a public meeting that allegedly incited hatred and animosity between different groups and communities and brought the government into disrepute. The meeting, attended by a large audience, led to the registration of an FIR under sections 124-A and 153-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) on 6-11-1986. The applicants were already under preventive detention and were arrested on 9-12-1986 and 10-12-1986. An interim challan was submitted mentioning offences under sections 123-A, 124-A, 153-A, PPC, section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974, and section 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (M.P.O.). ----Issues: 1- Whether the First Information Report (FIR) and the investigation were valid under the relevant provisions of law. 2- Whether the applicants were entitled to bail under sections 123-A, 124-A, 153-A, PPC, and section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974. 3- Whether the provisions of section 196 Cr.P.C. were complied with for taking cognizance of the offences. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The FIR and investigation under sections 124-A and 153-A PPC required a complaint under the order of the Federal Government or Provincial Government as per section 196 Cr.P.C. The report made by a police constable did not meet this requirement. The offences under sections 123-A and 124-A PPC and section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act, 1974, were exclusively triable by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. A complaint in respect of these offences had been filed before the competent Special Court, rendering the bail application for these offences infructuous. The bail application for offences under section 153-A PPC and section 16 of the M.P.O. was granted, as these offences were not scheduled offences triable by the Special Court. ----Citations/Precedents: Moulana Dost Muhammad v. The State, 1978 PCr.LJ 184 Muhammad Gul and another v. The State, 1985 P Cr.LJ 205 Gul Muhammad etc. v. The State, 1987 P Cr.LJ 737 AIR 1919 Mad. 968 AIR 1936 Pesh 65 PLD 1962 SC 397 PLD 1975 Lah. 126 PLD 1978 Kar. 108 PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 177 Sardar Gian Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Lahore 82 Muhammad Ehsan Khan v. State, 1968 P Cr.LJ 759 Khizar Hayat v. Commissioner Sargodha Division and others, PLD 1965 Lah. 349 Ch. Khadim Hussain v. The State, PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 125

Summary: (a) Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 – ----R. 32—Preventive detention—Validity—Detenu, a political activist, was detained under R. 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, for allegedly acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order—Petitioner challenged the detention, contending it was politically motivated and lacked legal basis—Held, that preventive detention under R. 32 is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Executive—Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the detaining authority unless non-application of mind or absence of material is shown—No case of mala fide exercise of power established—Detention order upheld. (b) Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 – ----R. 32 & R. 47—Distinction between preventive and punitive measures—Whether detention should have been ordered under R. 47 instead of R. 32—Petitioner argued that allegations against him amounted to prejudicial acts under R. 47, which required trial and judicial determination, rather than preventive detention under R. 32—Held, that R. 32 is preventive in nature, aimed at restricting movement and activities of persons to avert potential threats, while R. 47 is primarily punitive—Executive is the best judge of the extent and nature of threats to public order—Choice between R. 32 and R. 47 lies with the Executive, and courts will not interfere unless clear misuse of power is established—Contention rejected. (c) Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 – ----R. 41(6)—Prejudicial acts—Scope—Petitioner contended that allegations in the detention order, particularly regarding speeches inciting one wing of the country against the other, fell within the scope of R. 41(6) and should be adjudicated under R. 47—Held, that terms used in R. 41(6), particularly "exciting disaffection" and "promoting enmity between different classes," do not strictly apply to the allegations against the detenu—Moreover, courts will not interfere with the Executive’s discretion in assessing whether a threat necessitates preventive detention—No basis found to invalidate the detention order. ---Disposition: Petition dismissed; rule discharged.

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)—Petitioner challenged his detention 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—Court observed that administrative authorities cannot invoke preventive detention laws as a substitute for criminal prosecution—Detention orders issued without tangible evidence of threat to public safety were 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) (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—Deputy Commissioner issued detention orders solely on police reports without assessing whether the requirements of S.3, MPO, were met—Court observed that such orders, issued mechanically without independent reasoning, violate constitutional protections—Impugned orders declared unlawful and set aside. Cited Cases: • PLD 2016 Peshawar 89 • 2004 MLD 1541 (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 had prior convictions and was already facing prosecution in various cases—Court ruled that resorting to preventive detention in such circumstances amounted to double jeopardy and was therefore illegal—Preventive detention must be applied before an offense is committed, not as an additional punishment for ongoing criminal cases—Held, that detention orders issued in such a manner are unconstitutional and must be 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 observed that administrative authorities routinely misuse preventive detention laws to create a false perception of law enforcement—Held, that failure to distinguish between law and order and public order renders the detention orders legally unsustainable—Orders were declared void. 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, no credible material was placed before the Deputy Commissioner to justify detention apart from police reports—Mere apprehension or suspicion, without any substantial proof, 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 orders lacked independent reasoning and were 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 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 petitioner ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.