Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2385 2015 SLD 2385 2015 PCRLJ 1087
Lahore High Court
W. P. Nos. 11938, 11941 and 11942 of 2014, decided on 5th September, 2014.
SHEZADA MAZHAR, J
Rana Zulfiqar Ali Sadiq for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Advocate-General and Dr. Sajid Mahmood Chohan, District Coordination Officer, Sahiwal for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD IJAZ

VS

The STATE and 4 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 11 & Fourth Sched.----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Preventive detention--- Detenus, recovery of---Judicial review---"Satisfaction"---Sufficient ground---Scope---District Co-ordination Officer directed detention of detenus on the ground that their activities were pre-judicial to public peace and tranquility---Validity---Liberty of a citizen, save in accordance with law, had been protected by the Constitution---High Court being custodian of Constitution had to protect and safeguard fundamentally guaranteed rights---Impugned orders were non-speaking having no reasons justifying the detention of detenus nor there was any material on the record---Said orders even did not touch the pleas raised by the detenus---Edifice of satisfaction was to be built on the foundation of evidence as conjectural presumption could not be equated to that of "satisfaction" which was subjective assessment and there could be no objective satisfaction---If High Court had come to a conclusion that grounds mentioned in the detention orders were not supported by sufficient material then there was nothing stopping the High Court from exercising the power of judicial review---Material should be of such a nature by examination of which a man of common prudence must form his opinion that detention order had been rightly passed---Detaining authority was required to establish each and every ground of detention on the basis of sufficient material to justify its order---If material on any one of such ground was missing then the whole detention order would lose its sanctity and would be liable to be set aside---No ground whatsoever had been mentioned by the detaining authority while extending the detention order and impugned orders were clear indicative of the fact that said authority had neither examined the material nor applied its independent judicial mind---None of the detenue had been enlisted in the Fourth Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Where any information was received that a person was an activist, office bearer or an associate of an organization, or in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492