Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960: LHC asks federal Law Ministry to review detention provisions
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday asked the federal law ministry to review the preventive detention provisions of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960.
A full bench headed by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum heard the petitions of PTI former MPA Zainab Umair and others challenging detention orders of the party/workers.
Earlier, the petitioner's counsel argued that several provisions of the law were in conflict with the Constitution and that hundreds of people had been detained under its cover. He said the law had been misused politically and arbitrarily by the government.
He pointed out that before detaining a citizen, the government must satisfy itself with justifiable grounds. However, he alleged that dozens or even hundreds of people had been detained under a single order.
The chief justice remarked, 'The courts are awake, not asleep, that's why the system functions.'
The chief justice observed, 'Everyone wants peace but if peace is disturbed, who will be held responsible? What happens if a protest is not peaceful?'
The Chief Justice also remarked that laws are framed on the foundation of the Constitution.
The bench, while concluding the proceedings, decided to forward two of the petitions to the law ministry and disposed of two others as being withdrawn.
Last year, a report submitted by the Punjab chief secretary in the court revealed that the provincial government had delegated its powers under section 26 of the MPO Ordinance 1960 to the DCs to issue detention orders subject to reasonable restriction.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CB upholds transfer of judges to IHC
In a majority verdict, a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the transfer of three provincial high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), noting that these transfers could not be declared new appointments. However, the majority judges partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority of the transferred judges after examining and vetting their service record "as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis". Two of the judges — Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed — however, declared the notification for transfer of the judges "null, void and of no legal effect" in their minority order. On February 1, the Ministry of Law issued a notification for the transfer of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asif — respectively from the Lahore High Court, the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Court — to the IHC. Following this transfer, endorsed by the president, the IHC issued a new seniority list, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges filed representations against this seniority list. However, the then IHC chief justice, Aamer Farooq rejected these representations. After elevation of Justice Farooq to the Supreme Court, Justice Dogar was also elevated as the IHC acting chief justice. The IHC judges and some other petitioners including Imran Khan challenged the ministry's notification as well the new seniority list in the Supreme Court, whose five-member CB heard the matter. On Thursday, three members of the CBJustice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar issued their short order, disposing of the petitions. The order noted that the powers of the president under Sub-article (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution for the transfer of a judge and the provisions contained under Article 175A for appointment of judges by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) are two distinct provisions dealing with different situations. "Neither do they overlap nor override each other. The transfer of a judge by the President of Pakistan by means of Article 200 of the Constitution (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment. "Furthermore, the powers of transfer conferred to the President by none other than the framers of the Constitution cannot be questioned on the anvil or ground that if the posts were vacant in the IHC, then why they were not filled up by JCP through fresh appointments. "One more important facet that cannot be lost sight of is that the transfer from one high court to another can only be made within the sanctioned strength, which can only be regarded as a mere transfer and does not amount to raising the sanctioned strength of a particular high court," it said. It noted that if it is presumed that all posts should be filled by the JCP alone through fresh appointments, then such interpretation or state of mind would not only go against the manifest intention of the framers of the Constitution but will also amount to negating or making redundant the substratum and existence of Article 200 of the Constitution. "The article is absolutely not dependent, concomitant, or at the mercy of Article 175A of the Constitution, but is an independent and standalone provision dealing with the transfer of judges of a High Court (permanently or temporarily) and not the appointment of judges, which assignment has been incontrovertibly conferred to the JCP autonomously in terms of Article 175A of the Constitution." The majority judges, however, partially remanded the matter to the president, without upsetting the notification of transfer, to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferred judges, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis. "Till such time that the seniority and nature of transfer (permanent or temporary) of the transferee judges is determined by the President of Pakistan by means of notification/order, Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, already holding the office of Acting Chief Justice of the IHC, will continue to perform as the acting chief CJ," they added. The dissenting note Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmed disagreed with the majority order and declared the notification for transfer of the judge null and void. They stated that Clause (2) of Article 200 of the Constitution is subservient to Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and both are interconnected. "According to the Doctrine of Harmonious Construction, while interpreting Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, both the clauses have to be harmonized and, being consistent with each other, have to be read in conjunction with each other for giving effect to both without creating conflict or absurdity" "When Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200 are read in conjunction with each other, it provides that when, in exercise of his discretion, the president transfers a judge from one high court to another, during the period for which he serves as a judge of the high court to which he is transferred, the judge so transferred is entitled to such allowances and privileges, in addition to his salary, as determined by the President." The order said the Attorney General for Pakistan conceded and categorically conveyed to the court on behalf of the Federation of Pakistan that the three Judges have been transferred on permanent basis. It said Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 200, read in conjunction with each other, do not provide for permanent transfer of a judge from one high court to another and it provides for transfer of a judge a period — on temporary basis. It said the permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC has been made in the wrong exercise of discretion under Clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution and has offended Article 175A of the Constitution, making it redundant. "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is suffering from concealment of relevant and material facts from the transferee Judges, from the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) "The process for permanent transfer of three judges to the IHC is also lacking meaningful, purposive and consensus oriented consultation with the chief justices of the IHC, LHC, SHC, BHC and Hon'ble CJP on all the relevant issues," it added. The minority order noted the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, have no role under the Constitution for appointment or transfer of Judges. "Being subordinate to the executive, the intelligence agencies, including the ISI, cannot override the executive, the judiciary, the constitutional bodies and the constitutional office holders," it added.
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Illegal weapons, liquor case: Gandapur's non-bailable arrest warrants suspended
ISLAMABAD: A local court on Thursday suspended the non-bailable arrest warrants issued for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur in a case related to alleged possession of illegal weapons and liquor. Judicial Magistrate Mubashir Hussain Chishti, while hearing the case registered at Bhara Kahu police station, suspended Gandpur's warrants. Gandapur appeared before Mubashir Hassan Chishti along with his legal team, marking his first appearance in the case after issuance of his warrant. During proceedings, Gandpur's counsel Raja Zahoorul Hasan told the court that his client personally appeared before the court. He informed the court that the Peshawar High Court (PHC) had already granted interim bail to the chief minister until July 3. He requested the court to suspend the non-bailable arrest warrants following Gandapur's court appearance. In response, the court asked about the submission of a statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), to which Gandapur assured that the required responses would be submitted after the presentation of the provincial budget. The court approved Gandapur's request and suspended the non-bailable arrest warrants and adjourned the hearing until July 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the court had issued an arrest warrant for Gandapur on September 4, 2024 for not appearing before the court. Gandapur, while talking to the media after appearing before the court, criticised the ongoing legal actions against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leadership and party workers. He stated that numerous cases against the PTI founding chairman and workers are wasting their time and energy. 'These cases are wasting the time and energy of our leadership and workers,' he said, adding that 'once the judiciary is truly independent and all institutions operate within constitutional limits, such challenges will naturally end.' He condemned the recent Israeli attacks on Iran and Palestine and expressed solidarity with both nations. Gandapur also expressed a desire to witness and participate in 'Ghazwa-e-Hind.' To a question about US President Donald Trump and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir's meeting, he said that he had no information and therefore could not comment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960: LHC asks federal Law Ministry to review detention provisions
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Thursday asked the federal law ministry to review the preventive detention provisions of Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960. A full bench headed by Chief Justice Aalia Neelum heard the petitions of PTI former MPA Zainab Umair and others challenging detention orders of the party/workers. Earlier, the petitioner's counsel argued that several provisions of the law were in conflict with the Constitution and that hundreds of people had been detained under its cover. He said the law had been misused politically and arbitrarily by the government. He pointed out that before detaining a citizen, the government must satisfy itself with justifiable grounds. However, he alleged that dozens or even hundreds of people had been detained under a single order. The chief justice remarked, 'The courts are awake, not asleep, that's why the system functions.' The chief justice observed, 'Everyone wants peace but if peace is disturbed, who will be held responsible? What happens if a protest is not peaceful?' The Chief Justice also remarked that laws are framed on the foundation of the Constitution. The bench, while concluding the proceedings, decided to forward two of the petitions to the law ministry and disposed of two others as being withdrawn. Last year, a report submitted by the Punjab chief secretary in the court revealed that the provincial government had delegated its powers under section 26 of the MPO Ordinance 1960 to the DCs to issue detention orders subject to reasonable restriction. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
