Govt given one month for submitting reply: Armymen's detention
By Our Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD, Sept 8: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the respondents, in the detention case of six army officials and an ordinary citizen, under custody of the military authorities, to submit comprehensive and concise statements within a month.
An apex court three-member bench, comprising Justice Deedar Hussain Shah, Justice Falak Sher and Justice M. Javed Buttar, was hearing identical appeals of one mother, five wives of the army officials and the wife of the citizen.
Secretaries of the ministries of interior and defence and director-general of the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) have been named as respondents in the appeals filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. The petitioners had asked the court to set aside the Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi bench order of dismissing their petitions.
Appeals were filed by Ms Yasmin Khalid, wife of Col Khalid Mahmood Abbasi; Ms Abida Parveen, wife of Lt-Col Abdul Ghaffar Khan; Ms Mumtaz Attaullah, wife of Maj Attaullah Khan Mehmood; Ms Farina Ruhail Faraz, wife of Maj Ruhail Faraz; Ms Khadija Adil, wife of Maj Adil Quddus Khan, and Ms Farzana Tasneem, mother of Capt Dr Usman Zafar- all under custody for violating the Army Act.
Sadia Sarwar Bhatti, wife of Sarwar Bhatti, under custody for the alleged involvement in the assassination attempt on President Pervez Musharraf at Chanda Chichi Rawalpindi, has also filed an appeal against the High Court order of dismissing her petition.
The Lahore High Court had dismissed the petitions of the detained officers on the ground that Section 2-d of the Army Act 1952 had taken away the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the petitions.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court observed that the issue of arranging meetings between the family members of the detainees after replies from the respondents were received.
Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry advocate, representing the family members, had requested the bench to issue directives against the respondents to arrange meetings. The petitioners had contended that the High Court had failed to exercise the constitutional authority and judicial power vested under the law while hearing the cases, although Brig Ayub, judge advocate-general (JAG), had conceded before the court that the army officials were detained for the last one and half years.
The petitioners prayed to declare that the decision of the High Court that the army act debars its jurisdiction to hear such cases, was against the law. The High Court during the hearings also ignored the conduct of the respondents of concealing every information from the High Court with alleged malafide intention on the pretext of public interest and sensitivity of the matter, they added. The petitioners said the release of the officers within the law was their legal right.
