ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has expressed disappointment over what it has called a ‘subjective sense of morality’ shown by a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge through an order which overshadowed his responsibility of protecting a citizen’s constitutional right to liberty.

“We may observe that we have felt saddened by the fact that through the impugned order a judge of a high court had allowed his responsibility of protecting a citizen’s constitutional right to liberty to be overshadowed by his own subjective sense of morality,” Justice Asif Saeed Khosa of the Supreme Court said in a verdict.

The controversy began when the LHC judge disposed of a habeas corpus petition on July 4 and ordered that Naseem Akhtar, 28, be sent to Darul Aman in Lahore so that the veracity of two nikahnamas could be adjudged by the relevant court.

The dispute revolves around claims by Mohammad Imran Khan and Mohammad Tariq that they contracted marriage with the same woman.

Mr Khan cited May 14 as the date when he married Ms Akhtar whereas Mr Tariq said he entered into wedlock on Dec 25 last year and that the marriage was still intact — a claim acknowledged by Ms Akhtar and her father Ali Mohammad, the petitioner in the case.

Ms Akhtar pleaded that she was not in confinement or restrained while living with her father and wanted to live with him.

She had filed on June 26 a jactitation of marriage suit against Mr Khan and the case was pending with a family court in Sillanwali, Sargodha district.

Ms Akhtar denied that she had married Mr Khan and pleaded that he should be restrained ‘from being her husband’. The same arguments were advanced by her father.

But the high court did not accept the plea, saying the contention was untenable and the court could not allow a person to live an ‘immoral life’. She was sent to the Darul Aman to ‘save her from the commission of an offence’.

She would stay in the Darul Aman till the time her suit for jactitation of marriage was decided, the high court judge ruled in his chambers.

Consequently, the father came to the Supreme Court by filing a petition against the high court order, which was taken up by a two-judge bench headed by Justice Khosa.

In his judgment released by the court this week, Justice Khosa said Ms Akhtar was a grown-up lady not involved in any criminal case as an accused.

Her consistent stand before the high court and the Supreme Court had been that she was not in any kind of confinement or under any restraint while living with her father.

“Although she has two rival suitors yet she has expressed a clear desire before the apex court that she wishes to go and live with her father,” the verdict said.

“We have found it to be rather disturbing that despite her eagerness to continue living with her father she had been deprived of her liberty and ordered by the judge in chamber of the LHC to be lodged at Darul Aman and that too for an indefinite period,” it said.

It was quite ironic and shocking, the judgment said, that the habeas corpus proceedings before the LHC, meant to secure release of a person from an illegal or improper custody or confinement, had been utilised for depriving a free person of her liberty and the net result was that a grown-up, young lady who was not found to be in any kind of confinement or under any restraint had been locked up and incarcerated within the confines of Darul Aman for an indefinite period. Such an approach and the result achieved by the judge ran contrary to the very essence and purpose of a writ or petition for habeas corpus which was securing freedom and not curtailing liberty, it said.

The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and ordered that Ms Akhtar be set free. “She may go and live with her father, namely Ali Mohammad, petitioner, as desired by her,” the order said.

It said it was unfortunate that in his zeal and eagerness to prevent commission of an imagined or apprehended sin or crime the high court judge had not only chosen to ignore the divine command but had also decided to disregard the constitutional mandate.

The high court judge had not even levelled an allegation but had only imagined a possibility of commission of zina in future and had then proceeded to punish Ms Akhtar by depriving her of her liberty and putting her in the confines of a Darul Aman for an indefinite period, it said.

The apex court asked the registrar of the LHC to bring the verdict to the notice of the judge-in-chamber.

More From This Section

Chinese investors threaten to move capital from KP to Balochistan

A representative of the Chinese investors alleged that an advisor of KP CM, was causing hindrances in the ventures.

Opposition questions privatisation of 32 entities

The opposition parties showed their concerns and staged a symbolic walkout from the Senate against the govt’s decision.

PM calls urgent meeting on national security

Federal ministers, services chiefs, DG IB, ISI and CJCSC are invited to attend the meeting on Thursday, said sources.

Nawaz, Zardari discuss political situation, security

The two also discussed the ongoing operation in Karachi and the dialogue process with Taliban.

Comments are closed.

Comments (7)

Karamat Hussain Janjua
July 28, 2013 8:49 am

Judgments and decisions of His Lordship Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa speak themselves for his wisdom and vast knowledge of the Constitutional as well as law of divine and even socio-economic and problems being faced by the masses and highhandedness of the cheaters having no fear of Allah Almighty and law enforcing agencies. The stories of environments of Darulamans of the country are also not satisfactory which are seemingly worst of the prisons. Salute to their Lordships to remedy the poor parents and the young lady for the relief at the moment to live with her father who would certainly protect her from highhandedness of the cheaters and blackmailers.

Karamat Hussain Janjua Advocate

July 28, 2013 9:56 am

Yet another example of the male dominated society that IS Pakistan. Women may have rights on paper, but in the minds of Pakistani men, women are objects, nothing more.

July 28, 2013 11:48 am

A sane judgement. We are not animals. Personal liberty and freedom of expression are two fundamental rights of human beings. The terrorists try to deprive these rights to the people.

July 28, 2013 12:55 pm

Please make public the name of that Judge of High Court who made this unjust decision. We, the people of Pakistan, have the right to know the name of that person who deprive us of our right in the name of his self devised and imagined morality.

M J Syed
July 28, 2013 1:05 pm

I am very heartened to learn that our Supreme Court also conducts business other than politics!!

July 28, 2013 3:43 pm

Congrats to the petitioner and the justice system of Pakistan that in this case it has stepped outside the self righteous morality which inflicts this society. May human liberty always triumph.

July 29, 2013 6:30 am

Now this is exactly what the Supreme Court should be doing -- redressing ordinary citizens grievances -- not ordering the ECP to change the dates for the presidential election just because the PM wants it..

Explore: Indian elections 2014
Explore: Indian elections 2014
How much do you know about Indian Elections?
How much do you know about Indian Elections?
From The Newspaper