PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Friday reserved judgment in the case about its jurisdiction in tribal areas over matters related to illegal detentions and government servants.

After hearing arguments of additional attorney general for Pakistan Attique Shah in around 60 writ petitions, a full bench comprising Chief Justice Mian Fasihul Mulk, Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel, Justice Yehya Afridi, Justice Qaisar Rasheed and Justice Manzoor Hussain reserved judgement for Monday (April 7).

The bench has been determining whether it could exercise any jurisdiction in issues related to Fata in the presence of Article 247 (7) of the Constitution, which has barred the superior courts from exercising any jurisdiction there.

The court directed Mr Attique Shah to submit record of the debate which took place in the National Assembly on Article 247 at the time of framing of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan.

The court has formulated several questions including whether it has jurisdiction regarding federal and provincial employees working in Fata on deputation, whether it has jurisdiction in cases of federal employees working against key posts in Fata, whether it has jurisdiction to entertain cases of employees recruited in Fata? whether it has jurisdiction to entertain cases of illegal detentions by officers in Fata, whether it has jurisdiction to look into decisions made by the Fata tribunal in civil and criminal cases, whether it can exercise powers if cause of action arises/occurs in settled area but proceedings carried out by political authority in tribal areas, and whether it can exercise jurisdiction in contractual obligations arising between government functionaries of Fata and private persons.

Mr Shah said the articles identical to that of Article 247 were present in the constitutions of 1956 and 1962.

He said in the colonial era and subsequently after the creation of Pakistan, Fata enjoyed special status and the same was incorporated in the 1973 Constitution.

He contended that elected representatives of Fata were present in parliament and they could raise the issue there.

When the bench asked whether the high court could issue directives to parliament to enact a particular law or amend a law, he replied that under the Constitution, legislation was the domain of parliament and the court could only point out lacunas or loopholes in a law.

To another query put by the court regarding issues pertaining to services of governments servants posted in Fata, Mr Shah said the court could exercise jurisdiction in cases when an official of federal or a provincial government was deputed in Fata on deputation.

Regarding illegal detentions in tribal areas, the additional attorney general said the Supreme Court recently ruled that the superior courts could not exercise jurisdiction in detentions under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) in tribal areas but the court could look into the matter if a person was removed from settled area to tribal area without fulfilling the requirement under the law.

When the bench asked whether any debate had taken place on Article 247 at the time of enactment of the 1973 Constitution, Mr Shah said members of the National Assembly had discussed every article of the Constitution threadbare.

The bench asked him to provide the record of the assembly regarding debate on the said article.