ISLAMABAD, Dec 9: Not satisfied with Saturday’s production of seven persons believed to have been taken away forcibly, the Supreme Court held that its order had still not been complied with and asked the government to explain under which law people were being detained in the militancy-infested areas.

“You (government) do not have any law on disappearances,” Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed on Monday during the hearing by a three-judge bench of a case of a missing man, Yasin Shah.

The case was initiated on an application of his elder brother Muhabbat Shah.

“The government could have promulgated an ordinance to regulate the detention of people believed to be missing,” the chief justice said, adding that internment centres must be run under Article 10 of the Constitution dealing with safeguards to arrest and detention.

“Now we are not going to insist on the production of more persons. Rather we are going to pass a binding judgment,” the chief justice said, adding that he still had 60 hours (referring to taking off his robes on Dec 11 as the chief justice) which would be like 60 years. “It is a wrong impression that my successors will not follow the missing person cases.”

If the prime minister had taken interest, he observed, the matter could have been resolved in 24 hours.

The superior judiciary is seized with a total of 721 cases of missing persons -- 44 pending in the Supreme Court, 345 routed to the apex court through its Human Rights Cell, 137 pending in the Peshawar High Court, one in the Islamabad High Court, 11 in the Lahore High Court, 165 in the Sindh High Court and 18 in the Balochistan High Court.

“This is lawlessness,” observed Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, a member of the bench, referring to the large number of cases of missing persons.

Attorney General Muneer A. Malik assured the court that he would talk to Defence Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif for a roadmap on the pending legislation regarding missing persons. He explained that instead of the law ministry, the draft law had been prepared by his office with the help of consultants.

Three bills -- the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance 2013, Anti-Terrorism Ordinance 7 and Anti-Terrorism Ordinance 8 -- are pending in the Senate and the National Assembly.

The AG said the authorities in the defence ministry had learnt their lesson well over the past 10 proceedings on the missing persons, but emphasised that the threat was existential and the secret dossier placed before the apex court in sealed envelops was filled with frightening instances of terrorism.

He requested the court not to issue any sweeping judgment which could hamper custody by security forces of miscreants in the operational battlefield zones.

Although he conceded that no notification for the requisitioning of the armed forces had been issued, the Action in Aid of Civil Power Regulations 2011 was promulgated under Article 247 (4) of the Constitution on June 27, 2011, which applied to the provincially administered tribal areas. The regulation gives the authorities power to exercise this with retrospective effect from Feb 1, 2008.

“There is no cavil that the security authorities have to act under the regulations,” the attorney general said, adding that if the arrest and internment of the detained persons were within regulations, the ambit of Article 10 was out unless held otherwise by the apex court.

Acting Defence Secretary retired Maj Gen Raja Arif Nazir said two more missing persons had been identified and they would be produced before the court on Tuesday. He said the ministry was trying to trace the remaining missing persons.

BALOCHISTAN CASE: The Supreme Court expressed annoyance over the absence of Inspector General of Frontier Corps Maj Gen Ijaz Shahid who is facing a contempt charge for defying its orders in Balochistan missing persons’ cases. The FC chief was required to attend Monday’s proceedings to justify why the personnel allegedly involved in enforced disappearances had not appeared before DIG of Balochistan Crime Investigation Department Imtiaz Ahmed Shah on Dec 1 despite a clear order of the court.

Advocate Irfan Qadir, appearing on behalf of the FC IG, informed the court that the officer was indisposed. He also said his client had reservations over the way the case was being conducted.

The counsel asked the court to issue an order which would be examined. If it was constitutional it would be obeyed, otherwise it would not be complied with, he said, adding: “The armed forces are sensitive about the constitution and our forces are also following it like the judiciary.” But the court ordered the attorney general to seek instructions from the interior secretary and inform it who was commanding the FC in place of Maj Gen Ijaz Shahid so that he could be summoned.

The court praised the Balochistan government for conducting peaceful local government elections and expressed the hope that other provinces would follow suit.

The case will be taken up on Tuesday.