PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday sought detailed replies from the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments to a petition filed by the KP Bar Council against the ‘worsening’ security situation in the province, especially in its southern region, complaining that the judicial system is affected.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Wiqar Ahmad fixed Oct 30 for next hearing into the petition, directing the KP advocate general and a deputy attorney general to file replies on behalf of both governments.

It asked them to answer the questions which it had formulated during a hearing on Oct 17 relating to security of court complexes, judges’ residences, the judges’ commuting, and measures in high risk areas, court security units and accountability mechanisms.

The petitioner has sought orders for federal and provincial governments to provide foolproof security to all the bar associations and judicial systems in the province, especially in the southern districts, for smooth administration and easy access to justice and taking measures to safeguard interest of every citizen.

Fixes Oct 30 for next hearing

The petitioner also prayed the court to declare the inaction of respondents including federal and provincial governments of taking measures for resolving the issues with respect to safe administration of justice and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals as unconstitutional.

KPBC vice-chairman Sadiq Ali Mohmand appeared before the bench and said that the law and order situation in the province, especially its southern region, was deteriorating, causing the judicial system to paralyse.

He said that the lives of the lower court judges and lawyers were under threat, so the courts in Waziristan, Tank, Kulachi, Daraban, and other areas had been shifted to Dera Ismail Khan district.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim observed that the government had to take the matter seriously as the judges couldn’t pick guns themselves for their security.

Advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankehl said that the government had been taking the issue seriously.

He said that as the high court had formulated several questions and therefore, they needed time to submit comprehensive replies to it.

The bench observed that along with the provincial government the federal government should also take notice of this matter as a sense of insecurity had been emerging among litigants due to the frequent incidents of violence on court premises.

During the last hearing, the bench formulated several questions, including “What standard operating procedures or rules are in place to ensure the security of court complexes and bar rooms? Are these SOP or rules being followed, and if so, how? If no such SOPs exist, what current practices are implemented across the province regarding the number of police personnel deployed at court complexes and bar rooms, availability of security equipment, fencing, vehicles security stickers, frisking procedures, metal detectors, baggage scanners, court-specific entry passes, biometric devices, and other safety measures?”

It asked similar questions about the protection of the judges’ residences.

The bench also wondered what SOPs or rules were established for the security of judges while commuting and whether there had been a consideration to priorities the allotment of official residences to judges based on security concerns.

“What considerations are there to provide security to judges, if official accommodation is not so allowed? Is there any consideration for improving these practices?”

About high-risk areas, the court asked the government whether any measures are being implemented to enhance security of judges, court complexes and judges’ residences in the areas affected by terrorism, and if that was the case, what those measures were.

It also asked whether there were dedicated court security units in place as per international norms and if those units were not there, what was the justification for it.

Published in Dawn, October 24th, 2024