PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday set aside the orders of the deputy commissioners for the detention of over 240 Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf activists in the province under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance.

“The impugned orders of the detention of the petitioners under Section 3 of the MPO are not maintainable due to the absurdity, vagueness, and lack of reasons and sufficient material,” a bench consisting of Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Syed Arshad Ali declared in a three-page short order on the petitions against detention orders.

The bench ordered the immediate release of the petitioners, who aren’t required in any other case, on the condition of furnishing two surety bonds of Rs100,000 each to the “satisfaction of the deputy commissioners or additional deputy commissioners concerned.”

It also directed all petitioners to submit separate undertakings to the relevant deputy commissioners that they wouldn’t be involved in any anti-state activities and wouldn’t act prejudicially to the public safety in any manner.

Asks them to give undertaking they won’t be involved in anti-state activities

The bench ruled that the district administration or provincial government would be at liberty to initiate proceedings and pass an appropriate order under the MPO Ordinance against the petitioners when it was satisfied that there were sufficient material against any of them relating to their any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order and their arrest and detention were necessary for maintaining the public order and public safety.

The court had reserved on Tuesday (May 30) the judgement on around 240 petitions against the issuance of the deputy commissioners’ orders for the detention of PTI activists following the May 9 and 10 violent protests.

The bench also ordered that those petitioners whose detention orders had been suspended by the court and so far neither they were arrested nor were required in any other case, should also submit bail bonds of Rs100,000 each with two sureties along with the said undertaking to the satisfaction of the deputy commissioner or additional deputy commissioner within five days of this judgement.

The court added that the bail bonds/ surety bonds submitted by the petitioners would be valid for a period of six months from the date of the bond.

Most petitioners belong to Peshawar, Swabi, Kohat, Hangu, Mardan, Nowshera and Swat districts.

Hundreds of identical petitions have also been pending with PHC benches in Swat (Darul Qaza) and Abbottabad.

Noted among the petitioners are former deputy speaker of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly Imtiaz Shahid Qureshi and former MPAs Asif Khan and Arbab Jehandad.

The deputy commissioners had ordered the detention of petitioners for a period of 30 days under the MPO Ordinance for “disturbing the peace and tranquility” of the respective districts.

The bench has heard detailed arguments of KP advocate general Aamir Javed and lawyers for the petitioners including Naumanul Haq Kakakhel, Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Qazi Mohammad Anwar, Muazzam Butt, Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Shah Faisal Ilyas, Ali Zaman, Taif Khan, Imran Khan, Aman Khan Bangash and Shoukat Khan Safi.

AG Aamir Javed had insisted that the petitions were not maintainable, so they should be dismissed.

He contended that after violent demonstrations on May 9 and 10, the armed forces were called in aid of the civil administration at the request of the provincial government under Article 245 of the Constitution.

Mr Javed contended that Article 245(3) of the Constitution declared that a high court should not exercise any jurisdiction under Article 199 in relation to any area in which the armed forces acted in aid of civil power.

The counsel for petitioners contended that the deputy commissioners had acted in an arbitrary manner by issuing ‘stereotype’ orders under the MPO for the detention of their clients.

They contended that there was a difference between “calling up armed forces to act in aid of civil powers and the armed forces, for the time being, acting in aid of civil powers.”

The lawyers insisted that in the current circumstances, the armed forces weren’t conducting any operation in aid of civil power, so just calling up the army in aid of civil power won’t preclude the high court from exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2023