KARACHI, Dec 7: An amended petition challenging the detention of a deputy chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Liaquat Baluch, will come up for hearing on Dec 13 when the advocate-general Sindh has been directed to provide the ground for detention.

A division bench, consisting of Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Ali Aslam Jaferi, passed the order when the counsel for the detainee, Raja Haq Nawaz Khan, challenged the continuing detention of his client.

When the matter came up before the division bench it was contended that the detainee, Liaquat Baloch, was held in custody without lawful authority. Raja Haq Nawaz stated that for the purpose of bringing certain developments to the notice of the court, amendment to the petition might be necessary. By consent the request was granted on oral motion.

The court directed to let the amended petition be filed on Dec 10 and a copy supplied to the advocate-general. It would come up on Dec 13 when the respondents would provide the ground for detention as well as place the relevant material on record.

On a separate application to meet the detainee in the prison, the bench ordered that Raja Nawaz Khan, advocate, with Professor Ghafoor Ahmed, might visit the detainee in Karachi Central Jail on Saturday, Dec 8, during working hours. The prison superintendent was directed to provide necessary facility for consultation.

On Nov 28, the detention of Liaquat Ali Baluch, under the MPO, was extended for another fortnight by the Sindh government which claimed that his internment was necessary for public safety.

Advocate-General Raja Qureshi had submitted this when the petition filed by Prof Ghafoor Ahmed, another deputy chief of the Jamaat, challenging the detention of Mr Baluch had come up before the division bench.

The Sindh government’s detention order of Nov 2, said that Liaquat Baluch was detained for a period of 14 days in exercise of powers vested under sub- article (4) of article-10 of the constitution from Nov 14 to 28.

“In view of the subversive activities there are sound reasons to believe that if he is allowed to remain free, he would continue to create problems which are detrimental to law and order.”

The government therefore contended in the order that upon being fully satisfied and with a view to preventing the detainee, Liaquat Baluch, from acting further in any manner prejudicial to public safety and also in maintenance of public order, his detention was necessary. Hence the Sindh government extended his detention period for 15 day during which period he would remain in Karachi Central Prison from Nov 29 to Dec 13.

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner, Raja Haq Nawaz, sought time from the court to raise his contention on the premise that the petition had not become infractuous and that even second order was in continuation of the first order of detention.

The division bench directed the counsel for the petitioner to make his submission on examining the second order of detention and to primarily convince the court as to how the pending petition was maintainable in the light of the fresh order of detention.

It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of detention, apart from being without lawful authority, was misuse of authority and jurisdiction, coercive, mala fide, arbitrary, unjust and violative of articles 2-A, 4, 9, 10, 20 & 25 of the constitution.

It was also contended that article 19 envisaged freedom of speech and expression while no action detrimental to life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person could be taken except in accordance with law.

Mr Baluch, who was the coordinator of the Pakistan-Afghanistan Defence Council, was taken into custody because of his strong criticism of the government’s policy of aligning with the US-led coalition which has battered Afghanistan, in alleged reprisal attacks against the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, killing a large number of civilians.

The petitioner had contended that criticizing the government and mobilizing the people against its policies, which were perceived to be a threat to the country’s unity, integrity, sovereignty and solidarity, was not a crime.

Family sources of the detainee apprehend that the government has deliberately adopted this tactic of coming up with a new detention order on the last date of the previous order to circumvent the dispensation of justice.