IHC questions sedition charges against protesters
Justice Minallah summons magistrate for an explanation
Representational image. PHOTO: REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday summoned a magistrate to explain why he had included sedition charges in the FIR against the 23 activists who were rounded up for staging a protest outside the National Press Club last month.
During the hearing of the bail petition filed by the activists, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah questioned as to how peaceful protesters could be booked on sedition charges.
The activists, mostly belonging to the Awami Workers Party and the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement, were earlier granted post-arrest bail by the high court.
The authorities informed the court in their report that the activists were booked on these charges on the directives of Islamabad City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
“How can you book peaceful protesters on charges of sedition and then convert them to terrorism charges,” the judge inquired.
The court was informed that the charges of terrorism had been dropped against the protesters.
“Why shouldn’t we start proceedings against the person who ordered the case to registered,” Justice Minallah observed.
“The magistrate should appear in person before the court and explain why he issued these orders.”
The judge summoned the magistrate, directing him to submit an affidavit explaining why an order should not be passed to proceed against him for “what, prima-facie, appeared to be a misconduct on his part and why he should not be restrained from exercising judicial powers”.
The court directed the Islamabad chief commissioner and police chief to submit affidavits explaining the actions taken against the petitioners.
The officials were also directed to explain why the FIR may not be quashed in the next hearing fixed for February 17.
“We will set an example with this case,” said Justice Minallah. The judge also issued a notice to the attorney general for Pakistan and the advocate general for the Islamabad Capital Territory to assist the high court in the matter.
In a short order, the court observed that It was “obvious from a plain reading of the FIR that the petitioners were not armed and were exercising their right of assembly peacefully outside the Press Club, Islamabad”.
“The liberty of the petitioners appears to have been breached in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate who was on official duty. Admittedly, the offence of “sedition” was included in the FIR in violation of the judgment rendered in the case titled “Ali Raza and another v. Federation of Pakistan and another” [PLD 2017 Islamabad 64].”
The high court noted that “on the last date of hearing it was informed that the offence of “sedition” was deleted and instead offence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was added”.
“The narration of facts in the FIR did not support the said addition besides being in violation of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court,” it further read.
The court noted that “exercising judicial restraint”, it had afforded the Islamabad Capital Territory administration with an opportunity to review the actions taken against the petitioners. “When the petitions were taken up today, the learned State Counsel informed that section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was deleted and not the other offences.”
The order noted that “every detention amounts to a tort unless the officials directing the arrest can show to the satisfaction of the Court that intrusion of the constitutionally guaranteed rights such as liberty, inviolability of dignity and freedom of movement were justified under the law”.
Ex-CM calls for inclusion of locals in uplift schemes
“In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the officials have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation for invoking the most serious offences i.e. “sedition” and “terrorism”. Through their conduct the officials have, primafacie, established that powers were exercised in an arbitrary and reckless manner.”
It emphasised that a “constitutional Court cannot turn a blind eye to arbitrary actions of the officials in the Capital of Pakistan having the effect of blatantly violating the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution”.
The high court has stressed that no adverse action should be taken against the petitioners “till the next date fixed” for hearing.
During the least hearting, Justice Minallah had questioned the grounds under which the authorities had included the terrorism clause against the activists. “Have you read the top court’s decision defining terrorism?”
“How can you questions one’s patriotism?” he questioned. “Do you believe the courts would turn a blind eye to the matter?”
Deputy Inspector General of Police Waqarud Din Sayed and Deputy Commissioner Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat informed the court that sedition charges have been removed FIR and the investigating officer had added Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
The court also observed that the additional sessions judge appeared to have “exceeded jurisdiction by making observations in paragraph 7 of its January 30 order without having regarding the recently enunciated law by the top court regarding the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.”
The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday summoned a magistrate to explain why he had included sedition charges in the FIR against the 23 activists who were rounded up for staging a protest outside the National Press Club last month.
During the hearing of the bail petition filed by the activists, IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah questioned as to how peaceful protesters could be booked on sedition charges.
The activists, mostly belonging to the Awami Workers Party and the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement, were earlier granted post-arrest bail by the high court.
The authorities informed the court in their report that the activists were booked on these charges on the directives of Islamabad City Magistrate Ghulam Murtaza Chandio.
“How can you book peaceful protesters on charges of sedition and then convert them to terrorism charges,” the judge inquired.
The court was informed that the charges of terrorism had been dropped against the protesters.
“Why shouldn’t we start proceedings against the person who ordered the case to registered,” Justice Minallah observed.
“The magistrate should appear in person before the court and explain why he issued these orders.”
The judge summoned the magistrate, directing him to submit an affidavit explaining why an order should not be passed to proceed against him for “what, prima-facie, appeared to be a misconduct on his part and why he should not be restrained from exercising judicial powers”.
The court directed the Islamabad chief commissioner and police chief to submit affidavits explaining the actions taken against the petitioners.
The officials were also directed to explain why the FIR may not be quashed in the next hearing fixed for February 17.
“We will set an example with this case,” said Justice Minallah. The judge also issued a notice to the attorney general for Pakistan and the advocate general for the Islamabad Capital Territory to assist the high court in the matter.
In a short order, the court observed that It was “obvious from a plain reading of the FIR that the petitioners were not armed and were exercising their right of assembly peacefully outside the Press Club, Islamabad”.
“The liberty of the petitioners appears to have been breached in excess of jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate who was on official duty. Admittedly, the offence of “sedition” was included in the FIR in violation of the judgment rendered in the case titled “Ali Raza and another v. Federation of Pakistan and another” [PLD 2017 Islamabad 64].”
The high court noted that “on the last date of hearing it was informed that the offence of “sedition” was deleted and instead offence under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was added”.
“The narration of facts in the FIR did not support the said addition besides being in violation of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court,” it further read.
The court noted that “exercising judicial restraint”, it had afforded the Islamabad Capital Territory administration with an opportunity to review the actions taken against the petitioners. “When the petitions were taken up today, the learned State Counsel informed that section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was deleted and not the other offences.”
The order noted that “every detention amounts to a tort unless the officials directing the arrest can show to the satisfaction of the Court that intrusion of the constitutionally guaranteed rights such as liberty, inviolability of dignity and freedom of movement were justified under the law”.
Ex-CM calls for inclusion of locals in uplift schemes
“In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the officials have not been able to give a satisfactory explanation for invoking the most serious offences i.e. “sedition” and “terrorism”. Through their conduct the officials have, primafacie, established that powers were exercised in an arbitrary and reckless manner.”
It emphasised that a “constitutional Court cannot turn a blind eye to arbitrary actions of the officials in the Capital of Pakistan having the effect of blatantly violating the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution”.
The high court has stressed that no adverse action should be taken against the petitioners “till the next date fixed” for hearing.
During the least hearting, Justice Minallah had questioned the grounds under which the authorities had included the terrorism clause against the activists. “Have you read the top court’s decision defining terrorism?”
“How can you questions one’s patriotism?” he questioned. “Do you believe the courts would turn a blind eye to the matter?”
Deputy Inspector General of Police Waqarud Din Sayed and Deputy Commissioner Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat informed the court that sedition charges have been removed FIR and the investigating officer had added Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
The court also observed that the additional sessions judge appeared to have “exceeded jurisdiction by making observations in paragraph 7 of its January 30 order without having regarding the recently enunciated law by the top court regarding the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.”