RAWALPINDI, July 6: The Rawalpindi bench of Lahore High Court on Tuesday summoned the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of Pakistan Army in a case involving the detention of six army officers , as the government had told the court that it was not disclosing information about the detained officers "in public interest".

The court also directed the Deputy Advocate General (DAG), Chaudhry Mohammad Tariq, to help the families of the army officers to meet them. The court summoned the Judge Advocate General on July 15, after the deputy attorney general told the court that the army officers were being tried under Section 2-d of the Army Act, 1952, hence the court had no jurisdiction over the case.

He also contended that some time back the government had also detained some scientists under the same act, and a division bench had given its decision in favour of the government by ruling out its jurisdiction over the case.

The defence counsel, Ikram Chaudhry, had repeatedly sought the appearance of the advocate general before the court for showing the court the arrest warrants of the army officers, the authority which had issued the orders and the charge sheet against them.

However, the court summoned the Judge Advocate General instead, as the DAG had earlier informed the court that the officers were already being tried. In the second week of June, the government for the first time had accepted verbally that the six army officers were in its custody under the Army Act.

However, on June 28 the court observed that mere verbal reply by the DAG was not enough and that the court should be informed about the authority which had brought charges against the officers besides the one which had detained or tried them.

When the court took up the case, the defence counsel, Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, Taufeeq Asif and Hasnain Chohan, contended before the court that the government must inform the court about the grounds for the detention of the officers as well as their trial procedure and the detention authority.

Under articles 4,5,9 and 10 of the Constitution, they contended, army officers could not be kept in detention without initiating a trial against them after framing of charges. However, the government was yet to inform the court about the procedure of the trial of the officers.

The defence counsel had already filed a rejoinder against the DAG's initial comments, rejecting the court's jurisdiction over the case. The defence counsel also contended that the officers were under solitary confinement for the last so many months and requested the court to issue directions so that the family members could meet these officers.