ISLAMABAD: The federal government filed in the Supreme Court on Thursday an appeal against the Islamabad High Court’s verdict suspending detention orders of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind of Mumbai attacks.

The appeal was jointly filed by Additional Attorney General Mohammad Waqar Rana on behalf of the government through the secretary interior, district magistrate of Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) and Senior Superintendent Police of Islamabad.

“Without prejudice to the case registered against the respondent (Lakhvi) under the Pakistani law, he is accused in an offence committed outside the country,” the appeal said, adding that the country had international obligations which exclusively fell within the executive domain dealing with “external affairs of Pakistan” as set out under Article 10(4) of the Constitution.

On Dec 29, the IHC had granted conditional release of Lakhvi by suspending his detention orders issued by the Islamabad district administration soon after an anti-terrorism court (ATC) had granted him bail on Dec 18.

A day after the high court’s decision to suspend the detention orders, a civil judge gave Lakhvi’s custody to Islamabad police in connection with a six-year-old ‘kidnapping’ case.

Lakhvi has been behind bars since Feb 19, 2009 after an FIR was registered with the FIA’s Special Investigation Unit (SIU) for allegedly training terrorists and facilitating the Mumbai attacks on Nov 26, 2008, in which 166 people were killed.

The government’s appeal argued that it was a well settled law that in external matters courts followed the footsteps of the executive and never sat on appeal over the latter’s decision.

“In such issues the courts always exercise judicial restraint.

Therefore, the provisions of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 under which Lakhvi was detained should not be read with Article 10(4) of the Constitution,” it contended.

The appeal said the high court had passed the suspension orders in a complete misreading of the law while ignoring relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Thus the high court had acted without jurisdiction and erred in law by failing to take into account that Lakhvi had an alternative remedy which he availed himself of by making a representation to the federal government, it said.

The appeal asked whether the high court, without finding any illegality with the detention orders, could interfere at the interim stage. By suspending the detention orders, it argued, the high court had granted a final relief to Lakhvi which was contrary to the established principles of law. “Thus the impugned order (Dec 29 IHC order) is liable to be set aside on this ground alone,” it pleaded.

The appeal argued that under Article 199 of the Constitution, if a high court jurisdiction was invoked as in the case of Lakhvi, the courts only granted interim relief after recording reasons in writing on issues if it had the effect of prejudicing or interfering with carrying out of a public work, harmful to the public interest or state property or impede the assessment or collection of public revenues.

“Keeping in view the conditions, the high court order seems to be arbitrary, fanciful and unreasoned,” the appeal said.

Published in Dawn, January 2nd, 2015