The Punjab government on Monday filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the Lahore High Court’s verdict declaring detention of banned Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) ‘illegal and unlawful’.
The Punjab government, through the additional chief secretary, moved the appeal against the verdict of the Lahore High Court and made Ameer Hussain, the paternal uncle of TLP chief Saad Rizvi, and others as respondents.
Stating facts, the Punjab government said that the Punjab Police inspector general (IG) informed the Lahore deputy commissioner that Saad Rizvi is the son of Maulana Khadim Hussain Rizvi and now is the head of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan. The government said that he was involved in harassing the general public and in activities against the government frequently.
The Punjab government said that earlier this year in April, Saad Rizvi publicly announced in Sabzazar that they would hold countrywide protests and would block the roads and take out rallies in case the government did not expel the French ambassador. The government said that such a scenario would give rise to the situation prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order, if they are not controlled. The agencies, it said, recommended detention of Hafiz Saad Rizvi for law and order situation.
In its appeal, the Punjab government said that the LHC bench failed to note the intent and support behind the introduction of Section 111EEE of the Act ibid. It is submitted that monitoring and surveillance under Section 111EEE of the Act is different from preventive detention and conviction.
The Punjab government said that the LHC bench failed to appreciate and understand the import of Section 111EEE of the Act, and failed to realize the true ambit, scope and purport and scheme behind the section. It said that there is no reasoning in the impugned judgment and clear direction under the law was missing.
The government said that all the requirements in the case were fulfilled and the bench failed to appreciate that “the Chief Minister is not required to bring every matter to the cabinet”.
It also said, “The honorable court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate that the matter pertains to policy decisions being taken by the public functionary which has got legal sanctity attached to it.” It further submitted that the LHC bench misconstructed the basic concept of alternate remedy available under Section 111-EEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
