SC to hear plea against release of Daniel Pearl murder accused on Feb 1

A three-judge bench led by Justice Bandial will take up Sindh govt's plea on Monday seeking stay on SHC release orders


Hasnaat Malik January 30, 2021
Slain American journalist Daniel Pearl. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has fixed Sindh government's plea for hearing on Monday against the release of all accused involved in American Journalist Daniel Pearl murder case.

A three-judge bench of the apex court led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial will take up Sindh government’s plea seeking stay on the Sindh High Court December 24 decision regarding release of all accused persons.

The same bench on January 25 issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) and all advocate generals for legal assistance in the matter.

During last Monday’s hearing, Sindh Advocate General Suleman Talibuddin claimed that the SHC’s Dec 24 release order did not contain detailed reasons.

“One of the findings recorded by the [SHC] short order is that the respondents [accused persons] are not ‘enemy aliens’ within the meaning of Article 10 (9) of the Constitution. Meaning of this term is hitherto judicially unexplained,” Talibuddin said.

The Sindh government claimed that the accused persons fall in the category of “enemy aliens”.

It told the SC bench that they had placed material as a proof on record of the SCH as justification but the same was rejected. “Now the Sindh government has requested the bench to pronounce authoritative judgment on the law and facts,” said the order-sheet issued by the Justice Bandial bench.

Advocate General Sindh told the bench that the SHC in its short order had barred the Sindh government from exercising its authority under Article 10 except with the permission of the court. He said the same constitutional provision authorises the provincial government to pass preventive detention of an individual.

The AGP contended that the jurisdiction reserved to itself by the SHC is vested by the Constitution in the appropriate review board. As a result the petitioner government has been divested of its powers conferred by the Constitution and regulated by the law, he stated.

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ