Ghulam Abbas vs Government of Punjab Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Ghulam Abbas VS Government of Punjab Ss. 11EE (4), 21-L & Fourth Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Part. II, Chapt. 1---Proscription of person---Fundamental rights---Scope---Accused placed in Fourth Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Sanctions so reflected apparently were against the fundamental rights---Fundamental rights are regulated through statutory law---When fundamental right is abridged through statutory law, utmost care and caution should be exercised to evaluate the information/material against the delinquents---Such action must not be an exercise in vacuum or routinely venture based on whims, wishes or conjectures of the authority to move blindly and run over the guaranteed fundamental rights---After imposition of such sanctions, person becomes handicapped to run his life honourably and smoothly---For subsistence and spending his life, person becomes dependent upon the discretion of the Federal Government, and he is to take refuge in that respect under S.11-OO of the Act---In addition, the person enlisted in Fourth Schedule is required to execute a bond for certain restriction upon his freedom of movement, right to reside at a particular place, deprivation from entertainment and amusement, curtailment of liberty including check and probe on their assets or assets of his family members including parents, being under constant monitoring or surveillance; so much so he can be arrested and detained under S.11-EEE of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as and when the government desires---Section 11-EE of the Act, 1997, though enumerated different situations attracting liability for the persons to be enlisted in Fourth Schedule but use of words "reasonable grounds" in the section required evaluating the material/information within that scope---Reasonable grounds flow from the information available or collected against the delinquents and such information was usually derived from the links propagated through many types of material including SMS/voice messages, messages on WhatsApp or other social media accounts, pamphlets/handouts, posters, photographs, painting, caricatures, books/literature, newspapers, audio/video CDs, electronic and digital material, wall chalking, banners/pena flex, demonstrations in rallies, material on Facebook, Twitter or any other social media account, communication on telephone/mobile (CDR), speeches in public meetings, radio and T.V. shows, surveillance report in any form, reports from international agencies, suspicious transaction report from any financial institution etc.---Authority before enlisting any person in Fourth Schedule must ensure that information be available in more than one forms as highlighted above so as to make it credible and be more than a suspicion---Court asked specific questions from the Law Officer whether he had any record with him which could establish links of the present appellant with any proscribed organization or he could show the Court any material like visuals or audio by which it could be seen or heard that appellant was engaged in any objectionable activities but no such material could be produced or shown to the Court---When asked to explain the reasons for placing appellant's name in the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 1997, Law Officer contended that appellant remained involved in one criminal case---Involvement in any criminal case is hardly a ground to deprive any citizen of his fundamental right of life and liberty---Record once at the credit of an accused can not be used to rotate him in such allegations again without any fresh material in that respect---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Ghulam Abbas vs Government of Punjab Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ