LHC dismisses Khadija Shah, others pleas challenging detention

Division bench observes court has so far found no reason to declare arrest and detention illegal

LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court’s (LHC) division bench dismissed a set of petitions on Wednesday challenging the detention of fashion designer Khadija Shah and other women supporters of the PTI including Huma Saeed and others.

The petitioners had also challenged the judicial remand awarded by the anti-terrorism court (ATC) and the physical remand of the administrative judge ATC, seeking to declare them as illegal and unlawful.

They had also requested the court to declare "inoperative", "inalienable" the identification parade conducted on June 1, 2023 arguing that it was shameful, bogus and fraudulent in nature, claiming no due process was adopted.

The aforesaid accused had been arrested on May 23, 2023 in response to creating a law and order situation, chaos, rioting, chanting anti-state slogans, staging violent protests, attacking Jinnah House and then ransacking it.

Read US commitment to ‘green alliance’ highlighted

The two-member bench's - headed by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi - detailed judgment stated that there are certain alternate remedies available to the petitioners that they may resort to.

“At this stage, this court does not find any reason to declare the arrest and detention of the detenues as illegal and to allow these petitions. The writ petitions have been found to be meritless and are, therefore, dismissed,” the order stated.

Emphasising on the "unfortunate occurrence" of May 9, 2023, the order maintained that the incident not only challenged the civil judicial system of Pakistan but also exposed the level of intolerance and "dangerous fanaticism", and "mob psychology" of the country's people.

The bench further observed that the country had "never witnessed" this kind of ransacking of a place like Jinnah House, "a symbol of Unity, Faith and Discipline".

"The wrath of people was aimed at both the civil and military leadership," the bench wrote in its order, adding that what happened on the fateful day was "unexplainable". Not only was the writ of the state challenged, but the state was also directly targeted, it stated.

"Of course, the accused persons have valuable legal rights which are to be protected by the courts and this Court has no doubt that our legal system is capable not only of protecting them but also upholding the rule of law in the society through our efficient judicial system. Normal recourse to the law will be the best advised strategy for the petitioners. Bypassing the whole procedure and methodology will not help the petitioners," the order stated.

"There are certain alternate remedies available to the petitioners that they may resort to. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to declare the arrest and detention of the detenues as illegal and to allow these petitions,” the detailed judgment disagreeing with the version of the petitioners added up.

Different petitioners had filed petitions on behalf of the detenues contending that they were neither political activists nor had affiliation with any political party. Therefore, their mere presence on or alongside the pavements of the places that were attacked on May 9 does not mean that they were guilty.

The petitioners maintained that the "trumped-up identification parade" would not be of any evidentiary value as the detenues cannot be held liabile for the offences in the absence of any positive evidence.

Read more Jinnah House attack: Designer Khadija Shah says she is surrendering to police

The counsels for the petitioners implored the court that the names of the detenues were neither mentioned in the FIR, nor were their description, with particular reference to their physical features, disclosed.

The petition maintained that no overt act was attributed to them either, adding and that illegal detention of the detenues is in violation of Article 9, 10-A and 14 of the Constitution.

However, the law officers strongly opposed the version of the petitioners' counsel. They argued that the occurrence was unprecedented in the history, yet all the legal rights of the accused persons were being duly protected despite their hateful acts committed against public properties having symbolic value.

The physical remands were obtained when required under the law. The law officer argued that the non-production of the detenues on May 30, 2023 was beyond the control of the Investigation Officer (IO) since he was under obligation to present the case file before this court on the day. To produce the accused simultaneously was not humanly possible, they argued, adding that the detainees have not been subjected to any prejudice.