The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside orders to keep a Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) member’s name in the Fourth Schedule, it said in a written verdict issued on Saturday.

The Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (ATA) is a list of individuals placed under observation by the government on suspicion of their involvement in terrorism or sectarianism.

Today, the LHC issued the written order of a hearing conducted on July 13 on a plea filed by TLP member Ghulam Abbas against two orders — a 2021 order wherein his name was included in the Fourth Schedule list and a 2022 order wherein his review petition against the former was rejected.

Click to see more

Abbas frequently represents the TLP in the party’s negotiations with the government. He was among members who signed a 12-point agreement last month with the government on assorted issues, including speedy trials of blasphemy accused and easing restrictions on the religio-political party.

Today’s verdict, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, was issued by LHC Justices Ali Baqar Najafi and Muhammad Amjad Rafiq. In it, the court ruled that “there exist no such grounds which could justify enlisting” of the petitioner in the Fourth Schedule.

It observed that by enlisting the person as proscribed, there are “strict implications […] by which practically the life and living of such person is massively curtailed as even for medical and educational expenses he needs approval from the federal government”.

The order recalled that the court asked specific questions from the law officer and asked if he could show any material “by which it could be seen or heard that appellant was engaged in any objectionable activities but no such material could be produced or shown to the court”.

It further observed that the law officer also did not have information about the fate of a criminal case, under which he said Abbas had been enlisted in the Fourth Schedule.

The LHC noted that “simply the involvement of the appellant in any criminal case is hardly a ground to deprive any citizen of his fundamental right of life and liberty”.

The order noted the court was “mindful of the consequences” of enlisting a person in the list and that subsequent sanctions were against fundamental human rights, which is why such a move “must not be an exercise in vacuum or routinely venture based on whims, wishes or conjectures of the authority”.

“It is in common experience that after imposition of such sanctions, person becomes handicapped to run his life honourably and smoothly; for subsistence and spending his life, he becomes dependent upon the discretion of the federal government.”

The verdict went on to observe that an enlisted person was “required toexecute a bond for certain restriction upon his freedom of movement,right to reside at a particular place” along with “deprivation from entertainment and amusement”.

It stated that the government could arrest and detain such a person under Section 11-EEE (powers to arrest and detain suspected persons) of the ATA “as and when the government desires”.

The order went on to list numerous channels through which information could be collected amounting to reasonable grounds, including social media accounts, text messages, posters, photographs, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches on any forum and surveillance reports among others.

Click to see more

Defining what “reasonable grounds” for proscribing a person meant, the verdict cited a Supreme Court order from 2020 that explained the same.

The court observed that before enlisting any person in the Fourth Schedule, the authority concerned “must ensure that information be available in more than one forms as highlighted above so as to make it credible and be more than a suspicion”.

It also highlighted that “it must be ensured that the person, once involved in such activities, is still alive and in touch with same state of affairs in order to avoid any deprivation of an individual from his fundamental rights”.

Recalling Section 11-EE of the ATA, the order noted: “State must demonstrate that the person sought to be notified as such, was involved in cases under Sections 6 and 7 of the ATA,1997 or was an office-bearer, activist or associate with an organisation notified in terms of Section 11-B for proscription of organisation by federal government or was member of such organisation which was under observation in terms of Section 11-D of ATA, 1997 or was involved in terrorism or sectarianism.”

Stating that the information to arrive at the above conclusion “may be gathered from any credible source whether domestic or foreign”, the LHC observed that there “must be some reasonable grounds before enlisting a person in Fourth Schedule and of course, reasonable grounds stand apart from reasonable suspicion”.

In the plea, Abbas’ counsel had argued that his client’s case does not qualify to be treated under section 11-EE (proscription of person) of the ATA because “no such material is available against him”.

According to Section 11-EE of the ATA, the government may list a person as a proscribed person in the Fourth Schedule if the person is “concerned in terrorism”, “an activist, office bearer or an associate of an organisation kept under observation” or is concerned or suspected to be concerned with any organisation suspected to be involved in terrorism or sectarianism.

If listed in the Fourth Schedule, the government may require such a person to execute a bond with one or more sureties for “this good behaviour and notinvolve in any act of terrorism” for a period not exceeding three years.