ISLAMABAD:
The Lahore Excessive Court docket (LHC), setting apart its earlier order permitting former federal minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed to journey overseas for Umrah, dominated that the liberty of motion enshrined in Article 15 of the Structure will not be absolute.
“Though the Structure ensures freedom of motion as a basic proper, the identical will not be absolute in nature. The framers of the Structure have expressly certified this proper by making it ‘topic to cheap restrictions imposed by regulation within the public curiosity.’
“The constitutional scheme, subsequently, acknowledges that the best of a person to maneuver freely should typically yield to the bigger curiosity of society, the administration of justice, and the enforcement of regulation,” stated a 23-page judgment authored by LHC’s Justice Jawad Hassan.
An LHC division bench, led by Justice Hassan, heard the federal authorities’s intra-court attraction towards a single bench order whereby Sheikh Rashid had been allowed to journey overseas for Umrah.
The order held that the authority to manage the passport of an accused beneath Part 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, together with permission to journey overseas, lies solely with the anti-terrorism courtroom (ATC) seized of the matter.
The courtroom noticed that the one bench order was handed based totally on a concession made by a regulation officer, which was past his lawful mandate and opposite to the statutory framework.
It held that no estoppel can come up from such a concession, as a press release made with out authority can not override a subsisting judicial command.
“Thus, we’re inclined to permit this attraction and put aside the impugned order, with the statement that the applying of the respondent, filed throughout the pendency of this attraction earlier than the ATC, which was disposed of with out being selected deserves on account of the pendency of this attraction, shall be deemed to be pending earlier than the ATC.
“[The appeal] shall be determined by itself deserves after listening to each events, in accordance with regulation, with out being influenced by any statement made herein,” the judgment acknowledged.
The courtroom famous that in issues regarding legal proceedings and the administration of justice, restrictions on the motion of an accused individual will not be unusual.
“The place an individual faces trial earlier than a reliable courtroom, sure situations could also be imposed to make sure their availability throughout proceedings and to stop the potential for abscondence.
“Such restrictions are designed to take care of the efficacy of the legal justice system and can’t be termed arbitrary merely as a result of they restrict the accused’s private liberty to some extent.”
The courtroom held that the restriction in Sheikh Rashid’s case was not an arbitrary administrative measure however was intrinsically linked with ongoing judicial proceedings earlier than the ATC.
The judgment emphasised that Article 15 of the Structure doesn’t confer an unfettered proper to journey overseas when an individual is going through trial beneath the Act.
Part 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a lawful statutory provision enacted within the public curiosity, operates as an inexpensive restriction on the train of the best assured beneath Article 15 of the Structure.
“Accordingly, each provisions should be learn collectively and harmoniously construed to take care of a steadiness between particular person liberty and the efficient administration of justice.”
The courtroom reiterated that Article 15 doesn’t confer an absolute proper of motion, as it’s expressly topic to cheap restrictions imposed by regulation within the public curiosity.
Consequently, the place such restrictions emanate from lawful authority and are aimed toward guaranteeing the correct administration of justice, they can’t be stated to violate Article 15.
The judgment defined that when Article 15 is learn in isolation, it might seem to grant an unrestricted proper of motion.
Nonetheless, when the qualifying phrase – “topic to cheap restrictions imposed by regulation within the public curiosity” – is taken into account, it turns into evident that Part 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act falls squarely inside permissible constitutional limitations.
“Consequently, Article 15 of the Structure and Part 28-A of the Act should be learn collectively and harmoniously interpreted. The doctrine of harmonious development requires that the place a constitutional provision and a statutory enactment function inside the identical area, the courtroom ought to interpret them in a fashion that provides impact to each fairly than rendering both redundant.”
The courtroom noticed that Article 15 lays down the overall constitutional precept of freedom of motion, whereas Part 28-A supplies a selected statutory framework regulating the motion of individuals accused of significant offences.
“The latter, subsequently, operates as a lawful and cheap restriction inside the that means of Article 15 of the Structure. Additionally it is vital that the restriction contemplated beneath Part 28-A is neither arbitrary nor absolute, because it vests discretion within the courtroom to find out the period of passport impounding and to contemplate requests for journey overseas in acceptable circumstances.
“Thus, the restriction is regulatory in nature and topic to judicial oversight.”
The courtroom additionally famous that Sheikh Rashid had moved a contemporary software earlier than the ATC throughout the attraction’s pendency, which was dismissed as a result of the intra-court attraction was pending earlier than the excessive courtroom.
“The respondent was additional cautioned to stay cautious in future about concealing the current proceedings. Such conduct is important, because it signifies that he was absolutely conscious of the correct discussion board for searching for such aid and of the pendency of the current attraction earlier than this courtroom. By approaching the ATC whereas the matter was sub judice, the respondent seems to have tried to avoid the appellate proceedings.”
The judgment additionally criticized the function of the regulation officer, observing that the respondent had bypassed the statutory mechanism and obtained aid via a constitutional petition that was allowed based totally on a press release made by the Extra Lawyer Common with out correct examination of the statutory framework.
“Such conduct undermines the responsibility of a regulation officer, whose main obligation is to help the courtroom with candour, honesty, and full disclosure of information, regardless of the social gathering being represented,” the courtroom noticed.
The courtroom concluded that the respondent should have first availed the treatment obtainable earlier than the ATC as an alternative of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the excessive courtroom within the method he did.
