PHC slams police over illegal detentions
A three-member larger bench comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar, Justice Syed Arshad Ali, and Justice Sahibzada Asadullah issued notices to the federal and provincial governments, seeking explanations for the arrests. The case was adjourned to allow for the full court hearing.
During proceedings, Justice Ejaz Anwar strongly criticized police practices, stating, 'There is no law here. You arrest people first and file FIRs later. This must stop.' He warned that if the arrested individuals were not produced, the court would consider contempt proceedings against the CCPO and IGP.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Abdul Haleem, whose lawyer informed the bench that police raided his client's home on April 27, in search of a woman reportedly missing after arriving from Oman, and took five male family members into custody.
Despite previous court orders, the detainees were not presented in court.
The CCPO told the court that the individuals had been released on bail under Section 107, and that their custody was not with the police. However, the bench expressed dissatisfaction, questioning the legality of the arrests.
Justice Syed Arshad Ali remarked, 'If citizens have been detained, there must be a legal justification. We may summon the Prime Minister and the Attorney General if needed.' Justice Asadullah added, 'Fear the day when your own people are standing here saying the Advocate General is missing.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
PHC allows free use ofGovenor's House
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal, has permitted the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Governor and his staff to use the Governor House in Nathia Gali for official purposes free of charge. The court also issued a notice to the provincial government, seeking an explanation over its alleged plans to convert the historic property for commercial use. The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed against the provincial government's move to repurpose the Governor House as a rest house. Representing the petitioner, advocates Shumail Ahmad Butt and Shiraz Butt argued that under Article 101(3) of the Constitution, a Governor is entitled to official residences as determined by a Presidential Order. According to a standing Presidential Order from 1975, governors are allowed to use designated official residences without charge. In K-P, these include the Governor Houses in Peshawar and Nathia Gali. The petitioners informed the court that the provincial government had recently reclassified the Nathia Gali Governor House as a public rest house and handed its management over to the tourism department, which began renting out rooms, charging up to Rs40,000 per night. They maintained that the site holds constitutional and historical importance and cannot be converted without due process. The petition further stated that no sitting governor had ever consented to the conversion or declassification of the property and that any change to its status would require a new Presidential Order. The example of Punjab was cited, where the transfer of a Governor House was made lawfully through such an order. The court accepted the arguments and ruled in favor of Governor Faisal Karim Kundi, allowing him continued use of the Nathia Gali residence for official functions. It also asked the provincial government to formally respond to the matter. Meanwhile, PHC has issued a notice to the K-P government, seeking a formal response over its failure to establish a law university in the province despite clear court orders. The notice was issued during the hearing of a contempt of court petition filed against the provincial government. A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Dr Khurshid Iqbal presided over the proceedings. The petition was filed by Peshawar High Court Bar Association President Aminur Rehman Yousafzai, who appeared in court alongside General Secretary Advocate Ashfaq Dawoodzai and Advocate General KP Shah Faisal Utmankhel.
Express Tribune
6 days ago
- Express Tribune
PHC seeks reply on PTI's independents petition
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has issued a written order in response to a petition filed by Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's (ECP) decision to declare Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmakers as independent members of the provincial assembly. The bench, comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali, has sought a response from the Attorney General's Office. According to the written order, the Additional Attorney General has been directed to submit a reply before the next hearing. The court also ordered that this petition be heard alongside other related petitions filed by the Chief Minister and the Speaker of the K-P Assembly. The hearing has been adjourned until August 5. Chief Minister Gandapur filed the constitutional petition against the ECP's decision to strip PTI-affiliated assembly members of their party status and designate them as independents. In a related matter, the Chief Minister and the Speaker have also challenged the oath-taking of women elected on reserved seats at the Governor House, requesting the court to declare the move null and void. In his petition, Gandapur contended that PTI remains a functioning political party and still holds a majority in the K-P Assembly. He argued that the ECP's exclusion of PTI from the legal definition of a political party is unlawful. According to the ECP rules, a party must possess an election symbol to be officially recognized; however, Gandapur pointed out that under the Elections Act, 2017, the presence of an election symbol is not a mandatory criterion for political party recognition. He maintained that where there is a conflict between election rules and the Act, the provisions of the Act must prevail. The petition asserts that the ECP has no authority to declare PTI candidates as independents, and it requests the court to declare PTI lawmakers as legitimate party members. Furthermore, Gandapur urged the court to nullify the allocation of reserved seats, alleging that PTI was unjustly denied its rightful share despite being the majority party. The petition also calls for multiple ECP orders to be declared unlawful, citing deliberate exclusion of PTI in the distribution of reserved seats and allocation to rival parties. Meanwhile, PHC on Saturday deferred further proceedings and transferred the case to another bench regarding a petition filed against the sharing of videos from an event at Women University Swabi on TikTok. During the hearing, Deputy Commissioner (DC) Swabi Nasrullah, Additional Assistant Commissioner Fakhar Alam, and representatives of Women University Swabi appeared before the court. The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali. The petition, filed by Advocate Muhammad Hamdan, alleged that videos from a university event, attended by the DC and other officials, were later uploaded to the DC's personal TikTok account. The petitioner argued this act violated several articles of the Constitution and the official Code of Conduct, which may warrant penalties including dismissal from service. Advocate Hamdan contended that the DC's actions were contrary to social and cultural norms, sparking concern among the local community.
Express Tribune
24-07-2025
- Express Tribune
PHC dismisses contempt plea against police
A two-member bench of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) comprising Justice Ejaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali on Thursday dismissed a contempt of court petition filed against the arrest of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) provincial leader Syed Haider Shah Bacha. During the hearing, Justice Ejaz Anwar remarked that summoning the police in every case could hinder their ability to perform their duties effectively. He noted that the police admitted to arresting the petitioner but stated that they had not received any court order prohibiting the arrest. "If the police claim they acted on orders from higher authorities, then we would have seen how they could defy court directives," the judge added. The hearing began with Additional Advocate General Bashir Naveed and the petitioner's counsel appearing before the bench. The petitioner's lawyer argued that his client was arrested under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) for protesting against electricity load shedding and was subsequently sent to Dera Ismail Khan Jail, despite having secured protective bail from the court. He contended that the arrest constituted contempt of court as it violated a prior judicial order barring police from detaining his client. Justice Ejaz Anwar questioned how the arrest could be justified if a court order existed, adding, "Is the police so powerful that it can ignore the judiciary?" The police, in its written reply, stated that they had no knowledge of the court order at the time of arrest and released the petitioner once the order was received. The court also took note of the fact that 18 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner. His counsel responded that the petitioner was already on bail in those cases. After hearing arguments from both sides, the bench ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish contempt of court and dismissed the petition accordingly. Livestock notification Meanwhile, PHC has suspended the notification issued by the Livestock Department regarding the premature repatriation of the Project In-Charge for Khyber District, and has issued notices to the Secretary of Livestock and other relevant officials, seeking a formal explanation. The case was heard by a two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Faheem Wali. Advocate Aminur Rehman Yousafzai, representing petitioner Naeemullah, the current Project In-Charge of the Integrated Development Package in Khyber District, told the court that his client's appointment was made in April 2025. However, on July 1, the posting was abruptly withdrawn and he was directed to report back to the parent department. The counsel argued that the transfer order was issued without the recommendations of the relevant committee, making it procedurally flawed. He further informed the court that the provincial government has already issued a formal policy for project-based appointments.
