KARACHI, Dec 6: The Sindh High Court has held that the MPO 1960-62 is one of the draconian laws that is used as a tool to deprive a citizen of his liberty which is guaranteed under the constitution.

A division bench, comprising Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Musheer Alam, held this view while giving reasons for the short order in CPD-357 of 2000 filed by Ali Raza through Faiz Mohammed Qureshi, advocate.

Much water had flowed down the bridge after this law was promulgated and a large number of punitive and remedial legislations had been promulgated to meet every possible eventuality that might effect public safety and maintenance of public order, the court held. Measures to deal with such situation were outlined therein. Such legislations also provided sufficient checks and balances for the exercise of authority by the executives and, at the same time, provided remedy to the affected against misuse.

“We strongly feel that the powers under the MPO 1960-62 are often misused and the same has outlived its utility in the presence of such legislations,” the bench held in the judgment authored by Justice Alavi.

Through this petition the petitioner had impugned the orders passed by the respondent No 1 against his father, an alleged detainee, under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Ordinance of 1960-62 (MPO). It was averred in the petition that a large number of cases had been foisted upon the detainee which were pending in various courts wherein he had been released on bail.

The counsel for the applicant had urged that the impugned order was bad in law inasmuch as no detail or particulars had been given showing the involvement of the detainee in such cases.

The AAG had justified the detention on the ground that the detainee was involved in setting two vehicles on fire.

Referring to the contents of the detention order and its subsequent extension, the judgment also cited the celebrated case of Liaquat Ali Vs Government of Sindh PLD 1973 Karachi 78. A division bench of this court had laid down basic outlines for justifying the detention, that is, to say (1) the court must be satisfied that the material before the detaining authority must be such that a reasonable person would be satisfied as to the necessity for making the order of preventive detention (2) that the satisfaction should be established with regard to each of the ground of detention and if one of the ground is shown to be bad, not existent or irrelevant, the whole order of detention would be rendered invalid (3) that initially burden lies on the detaining authority to show the legality of preventing detention (4) that the detaining authority must place the material upon which the order of detention is based before the court, not withstanding its claim of privilege with respect to any documents, the validity of which claim shall be within the competence fo the court to decide.

In the case of Muhammed Abbas Vs Government of Sindh (PLJ 1992 Karachi 31) a division bench of this court had gone further to observe that the charges against the detainee had to be substantiated, and it was not enough to make a generalized allegation. In that case also since no details were given in support of the ground of detention, he was set free and the petition was accepted.

In another case, Ghulam Mohammed alias Gul Mohammed Vs Province of Sindh (PLD 1998 Karachi 367), it was observed by a division bench that the ground for detention was that the detainee was acting in a manner which was hazardous to pubic peace and tranquillity and that his activities were against the maintenance of law and order.

The division bench had observed that the order should specify as to how and in what manner the activities of the detainee would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

In that case also certain cases were registered under the penal code, but the court had held that the cases so registered were not by any standard of reasoning against the public.

In the light of the cases mentioned above when the bench examined the instant case, it found that nothing had been placed on record to substantiate the ground urged for making such an order.