Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1967 of 1979, decided on 9th May, 1979.

---‑‑Art. 199‑Jurisdiction of High Court ‑‑ Preventive detention- Extension of detention‑Jurisdiction of High Court while examining relevant record considered by detaining authority for detention purposes, held, not unlimited‑High Court only to see whether sufficient material justifying detention order existed and whether conclusion arrived at reasonable‑Secret report considered by Home Secretary, indicating detenu having made provocative speech which justified detention‑High Court declined to interfere.‑[Preventive detention.

Raja Mahmood Akhtar for Petitioner.

Rashid Aziz, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 6th May, 1979.

The detenu Mr. Abdul Qayyum Butt was arrested and detained on 23rd January, 1979 on the basis of an order passed by the Home Secretary, Punjab, dated 21st January, 1979 on the ground that he had delivered a highly provocative speech in a meeting held in the office of P. P. P. Rawalpindi, saying that if party workers could indulge in self‑immolation then they could also shoot 'the Army Generals. According to a secret report submitted by the Special Branch. Punjab, a P. P. P. meeting was held on 21st January, 1979 in the office of Peoples Party situated at Iqbal Road, Rawalpindi. This meeting was presided over by Sardar Muhammad Saleem. The detenu Mr. Abdul Qayyum Butt addressed the meeting alongwith many others. He praised the role of the party workers for donating funds for the party and said that the party workers in the mufassil had better served the cause of the party. He said that the party workers who could indulge in self‑immolation could also shoot the Army Generals in case party leader Mr. Z. A. Bhutto was not released from Jail. He said that a campaign in this respect would be started which would not be possible for the Government to stop. It will paralyse the whole situation.

2. Since the detenu had left for Multan after delivering the aforesaid speech, therefore, the detention order was served upon him there. Later on, grounds of detention were also served upon him within time. This order remained in force for a period of three months. However, it was extended for another two months on 2nd April, ‑1979 by the same detaining authority on the same grounds.

3. It is contended that there is no justification for extending the period of detention after the expiry of the previous one, as the situation at present has considerably eased. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, has argued on the other hand that since the activities of the detenu have been quite prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order in the past, apart from the speech which he made on 21st January, 1979 at Rawalpindi, therefore, his period of detention has been rightly extended.

4. Necessary record produced in the Court has been examined with the assistance of the learned counsel. It contains various secret reports with regard to his activities, some of which have been quite prejudicial, to the public peace and order. The last speech which he made on 21st January, 1979, as referred to above aimed at provoking the party workers to resort to violence even to the extent of shooting the Army Generals. The possibility that any of the workers might have resorted to such violence could not be ruled out if the detenu had not been arrested and detained. The Administration in the circumstances was justified in extending his period of detention in view of the conditions still prevailing in the country though having been eased to some extent.

5. I am not in a position to make any observation with regard to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the reports, submitted by the police officials. The jurisdiction of this Court while examining the relevant record considered by the detaining authority for detention purposes is not unlimited. It is only to be seen whether there was sufficient material justifying the detention order and whether the conclusion arrived at was reasonable. If it is so then interference would not be called for. In the present case secret reports considered by the Home Secretary, Punjab indicated that the detenu had made the aforesaid provocative speech, which justified his detention.

6. As a result of the above discussion, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.