Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLD 3049 = 1973 PLD 694
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 78 and 79 of 1973, decided on 16th March 1973.
Presented By: Noorul Arfin and Khuda Bakhsh Marri, JJ
A. K. Brohi for Appellant. Jamaluddin Ahmad, Addi A: G. (Sind) for Respon dents.

MUHAMMAD YOUNUS-Petitioner

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND HOME DEPARTMENT, SIND SECRETARIAT, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS --Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960

Section: 3(1),(6)

(a) West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) S. 3(1)-Preventive detention-Scope of judicial review and principles applicable: (i) citizen to be treated in accord ance with law, (ii) superior Courts competent to determine whether executive authorities acted with lawful authority; (iii) whole material upon which detention order made, should be placed before Court and Court alone to determine question of privilege in regard to a document being privileged; (iv) ascertainment of reasonable ness of grounds, a judicial or quasi judicial function ; (v) authority passing order of detention to apply its mind before taking action; (vi) "satisfaction" of detaining authority connotes a state of mind bordering on conviction; (vii) superior Courts competent to Inquire into bona fides of action taken ; (viii) detention would be Illegal if out of several grounds of detention any one ground is found to be bad; (ix) grounds of detention com municated to detenu must contain particulars of facts and should not be vague; vagueness in grounds infringes statutory (or constitutional) requirements- [Altaf Gauhar v. The Province of Sind and others Constitutional Petition Nos. 40 and 270 of 1972 and In re: Rajdhar Kalu Patil A I R 1948 Bom. 334 dissented from]. The principles to be applied in cases of preventive detention may be summarised as follow:- (i) It is the inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and only in accordance with law, that is, according to the accepted norms of legal process and in strict compliance with all the functions and duties laid down by law. (ii) The superior Court is expressly empowered to probe into exercise of public power by executive authorities to determine whether they have acted with lawful authority and in lawful manner. (iii) The burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of the preventive detention, for which purpose the authority must place the whole material, upon which the order of detention Is based, before the Court, the validity of the claim of privilege with respect to any document being within the competence of the Court alone to decide. (iv) The exercise of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register