As law-enforcing agencies try securing the PSL final in Lahore today and Sindh police hunts out the perpetrators of the carnage at the shrine of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, hundreds of suspected militants have been taken into custody. If not all, at least a good number of them, should not have been ill-treated and tortured to get their confessions - and in some cases, thumb impressions on confessions written by their detainers. But as expected, given the ever-looming threat of terrorism, there is not much of a debate in public whether these arrests are lawful and not in violation of the detainees' fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. For instance, Article 10 demands that no person who is arrested shall be kept in custody without being informed, as soon as that may be, of the grounds for such arrest. As if this was not enough of a guarantee of the detainee's right to be informed of the reason for his detention the 18th Constitutional Amendment added Article 10A by demanding "fair trial and due process" in case of the detainee's incarceration. But no more now as the counter-terrorism agencies go into overdrive. Incidents of custodial deaths, midnight disappearances and unlawful detentions are on the rise. One such case which earned the Supreme Court's censure happened in April last year. On the night between April 3 and April 4, 20 to 25 persons in black uniforms entered the house of one Noman in New Muslim Town in Lahore and took him away with his cell phones, ATM card and three licensed guns. His brother immediately contacted the local police and filed his application narrating the entire incident. After some days, a habeas corpus petition about his disappearance was also filed. But nothing happened, until the Bahawalpur counter-terrorism police admitted his detention, that he was part of a terrorist gang which was going to blow up the railway bridge on River Sutlej. On the rejection of a bail for Noman by the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court, his brother filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which granted bail.
And as the Supreme Court gave him bail it also issued a kind of advisory to all other courts of law: "Do not get distracted while dealing with terrorism-related cases, especially when the investigation or inquiry carried out by police is neither satisfactory nor free of malice". "It is true that the country is confronted with formidable terrorist activities ... so much so that twice the armed forces were called in aid of the civil administration/government to suppress this grave mischief... (and) no doubt thousands of army officers, soldiers and personnel from other law enforcement agencies suffered casualties and that the public was the major victim ... But this should not, in any manner, distract the court of law from doing justice," ruled Hustice Dost Mohammad Khan, who headed the two-member bench, in his six-page judgement. Taking note of the fact that despite the best efforts of the detainee's brother he had failed to find out the whereabouts of Noman and "citizens cannot be left at the mercy of the police's traditional chicanery, which is not authorised by law". And as for the right for a bail, although the courts are required to exercise extra care that those who challenge the writ of the state do not go scot-free the courts should also ensure that innocents are not grilled, put behind bars or painted as terrorists. This indeed is quite a timely warning, given the fact that in the wake of the latest spurt of terrorism in the country, the agencies concerned have taken into custody hundreds of so-called suspects. Whatever be the threats to peace, justice must prevail.
Comments
Comments are closed.