Govt asks SC hear their plea on suspension of Lakhvi's detention on Jan 5

Government says Lakhvi misrepresented the contents of the detention order before the high court

ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Friday requested the Supreme Court to bring forward the hearing for its appeal against the suspension of the detention order for alleged Mumbai attacks mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi to January 5.

Lakhvi had been granted bail in December 2014 by an anti terror court. The government then moved to detain him under the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO). But this was challenged and later overturned by the Islamabad High Court. The government had subsequently sought a suspension of the IHC's order in the apex court.

The application was moved by Advocate on Record Muhammad Siddiqui Khan Baloch on behalf of the interior ministry regarding the early hearing of the case.

The application states that several questions of great public importance, with regard to the Constitution and law, have arisen in the petition which was moved against the Islamabad High Court’s December 29 order.

Further, it states that the matter in the petition is of urgent nature, which requires immediate consideration of the court, hence the government requested the SC that their petition should be fixed for a hearing on January 5 or any other earlier date.

The federal government had earlier expressed apprehension before the top court regarding the likelihood that the accused, along with other miscreants, will cause damage to government’s key installations and public important places resulting in a breach of peace within the federal government and a possibility of any untoward incident cannot be ruled out as he is affiliated with the proscribed organisation.

The appeal was moved on behalf of the secretary interior, district magistrate ICT and SSP Islamabad against the Islamabad High Court December 29 order regarding the suspension of the detention order for Lakhvi.

The petition was drafted by Additional Attorney General for Pakistan Waqar Rana.

The government said Lakhvi misrepresented the contents of the detention order before the high court.

The interior ministry, while reproducing the detention order of the accused, said in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Peshawar on December 16, it is apprehended that the accused may incite or propagate possible terrorist activity prejudicial to public peace, tranquility and maintenance public order.

The government has contended that the high court’s order was illegal and liable to be set aside, adding that the court had passed the order on a complete misreading of the law, without due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances.

The petition stated, without prejudice to the case registered against the respondent under the law, that Lakhvi is accused in an offence committed outside Pakistan. Pakistan has international obligations which exclusively fall within the executive domain i.e “external affairs of Pakistan” as set under Article 10(4) of the Constitution.

The government also said that it is a well settled law, and in such matters courts should follow the executive and should not appeal against the decision of the executive.

Further, the government added that in such matters courts exercise judicial restraint and remedy under Article 199, being discretionary, is not to be obliged as a matter of course, therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside on this ground alone.

“The respondent did not mention in the high court that he was denied the opportunity to make a representation as provided by law,” the government said.

The petition says that the representation was made by the respondent on December 23. However, only four working days later, the high court held that the matter cannot be prolonged for an indefinite period, adding that four working days cannot be described as an ‘indefinite period’.

It was also stated that the order was passed in violation of mandatory provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, is ex-facie arbitrary, fanciful and unreasoned and should be set aside.

Moreover, the government has requested the court to set aside the IHC's December 29 order.