LAHORE, March 24: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the State on Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and his brother’s petition against the Lahore High Court verdict.

The division bench, comprising Justice Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, directed the State to file a reply within a week, after hearing the preliminary arguments of the counsel for the petitioners — who were detained for their alleged links with Al Qaeda.

Earlier, Justice Iqbal advised the petitioners’ counsel to go through the SC judgment dismissing the petition of the State against the LHC order for release of Dr Ahmad Khwaja’s sons and a nephew, Dr Khizar Ali, Dr Umar Karar and Muhammad Usman. The LHC had refused to grant the relief to Dr Ahmad Javed Khwaja and Ahmad Naveed Khwaja, who moved the SC against the verdict.

Justice Iqbal maintained that all the substantial questions raised in this petition had already been addressed in the SC judgment.

The counsel, Hamid Khan, however, argued that this civil petition contained certain legal questions which had not been raised before the SC during the hearing of State’s appeal. He further contended that the 90-day detention of the two elder Khwajas, which started on December 30, 2002, would end on March 30. In case the prayer assailing the validity of LHC’s judgment was not taken up by the SC before March 30, it would become infructuous, submitted the counsel.

The bench accepted this argument and allowed the counsel to make preliminary contentions. Hamid Khan argued that the LHC judgment was contradictory and inconsistent in that it had ordered the release of only three out of five persons detained on similar grounds through a joint order.

He also argued that both the detainees were already being tried by an anti-terrorism court on charges of harbouring Al Qaeda activists and opening indiscriminate fire on a police party.

According to the counsel, the accused, being tried under a special law like the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, could not be detained under the Security of Pakistan Act 1952.

He also cited judgments of both LHC and SC in support of this argument, saying that the detention order had been rendered infructuous by the trial.

Detailed arguments would be made by the two sides on the next hearing.