RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench has dismissed a petition seeking release of a serving brigadier, observing that a high court “cannot pass any order in respect of any person who even for the time being is subject” to Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
Justice Jawad Hassan dismissed the petition filed by Ummaira Saleem against the arrest of her husband Brigadier Akhtar Subhan who worked as the director at Defence Housing Authority, Quetta.
In a written reply, the military authorities stated the officer was arrested on “serious charges” and he was being dealt with in accordance with law.
“The sole grievance of the petitioner is that her husband has been taken into custody unlawfully by the respondents who are not even permitting her to meet him,” noted the judge.
Reitred Col Inamur Rahim, representing the petitioner, conceded that her husband is a serving army officer therefore, he is subject to Pakistan Army Act (PAA), 1952. He further stated that the petitioner’s husband was arrested in terms of Section 73 of the PAA and was being investigated by the military authorities under Section 2(1)(a) of the PAA.
Additional Attorney General Mohammad Siddiq Awan objected to the maintainability of the petition as per Articles 199(3) and 8(3) of the Constitution.
Mr Awan and Lt Col Haider Sultan of GHQ’s law directorate submitted the defence ministry’s reply, stating the petition was not maintainable as the serving brigadier was under legal and lawful custody of military authorities.
The defence ministry claimed the petitioner had been allowed to visit her detained husband.
When the court verified this fact, the counsel for the petitioner confirmed that she was given access to meet her husband just a day ago.
The court noted Article 199(3) of the Constitution clearly bars the jurisdiction of a high court to resolve the matters involved in this petition.
The court order stated, “A high court cannot pass any order in respect of any person who even for the time being is subject to any law pertaining to the Armed Forces with regard to any action taken under such law.”
The court ruled that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.
Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2023
