LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday sought a reply from Punjab government on alleged violation of a larger bench’s directive to consider proposals meant to make the preventive detention orders ‘transparent’.

Justice Farooq Haider was hearing a petition filed by Abdullah Malik, a lawyer and an activist, challenging sections 3 and 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance.

Advocate Azhar Siddique appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the impugned law does not provide clear and effective safeguards against deprivation of personal liberty.

He contended that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for the criminal justice system and that the liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed without sound evidence and reasonable grounds.

The counsel pointed out that a larger bench of the court had previously instructed the government to consider the petitioner’s proposals seeking exercise of power by the executive in a more transparent manner while issuing a preventive detention order.

He said the government failed to provide the right of appeal against detention and deterrent punishment in the form of heavy fines in cases of misuse of power.

The counsel stated that the larger bench had also directed the government to apply a “judicial mind” before issuing a detention order.

He alleged that the government had since issued hundreds of orders for the preventive detention of political workers without giving any reason.

The judge directed an assistant advocate general to submit a reply within ten days about the implementation of the larger bench’s order.

The petition also challenged the scope of restrictions imposed under Section 16, particularly in relation to freedom of expression.

It argued that the powers of preventive detention must be exercised according to clear, objective and evidence-based criteria and remain subject to effective judicial oversight and legal safeguards.

It further contended that indefinite restrictions on fundamental rights in the name of preventive detention are subject to constitutional scrutiny.

It asked the court to examine the constitutional validity of the impugned MPO provisions and limit their application in accordance with constitutional safeguards and fundamental rights.

Published in Dawn, October 3rd, 2026