PESHAWAR, Dec 3: The Peshawar High Court has observed that some of the religious groups tried to get political mileage out of the situation born of the attack on Afghanistan.

A division bench, in its detailed judgment issued on Monday in the writ petition of Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad, observed: “We admit every person in the civilised society has the right to have his opinion and right of expression and positive criticism is always welcomed, but such speeches which arouse the negative sentiments of the certain class of people who are mostly illiterate and without having any positive role in the building of the society soon become victim of this kind of exploitation.”

The bench, which dismissed the petition challenging the detention of the petitioner on Nov 28, further observed: “We have observed that taking advantage of the situation, some of the religious groups did try to gain mileage for themselves and for their political parties without realising the fact that their action would turn such vulnerable situation into a disaster.”

The bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied and Justice Qaim Jan Khan added that apprehending the breach of public order and tranquillity and to prevent evil elements imperilling the security and causing anarchy, the government had sufficient and justifiable reasons, for making preventive order within the parameter of law which could in no way be termed mala fide.

The court observed that under sub-section 6 of section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, the petitioner could make recommendation to the government.

About the petitioner’s counsel’s contention that before the issuance of the preventive order on Nov 3, FIR was registered on Nov 2 under section 124A, 153, 153A of Pakistan Penal Code and 16 MPO was registered at Mardan and the government could have very well proceeded against the petitioner if so warranted under the said report, the bench observed that registration of criminal case and issuance of orders of preventive detention were independent of each other.

The court ruled that preventive detention checks on the future activities prejudicial to public order and public safety while criminal prosecution which was punitive in nature, prosecutes on the acts already committed. The end purpose of making an order of detention is punitive while the purpose of criminal prosecution is punitive, the bench added.