LHC turns down appeal against uniformed army officer’s detention

RAWALPINDI: The Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi bench declined a plea on Wednesday against the  detention of a serving Brigadier, ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to issue an order against an individual detained under the Pakistan Army Act of 1952.

Brigadier Subhan Akhtar, the Director of Defense Housing Authority in Quetta, had been apprehended in Quetta in June on charges of corruption.

Justice Jawad Hassan of the Lahore High Court dismissed a petition filed by Brigadier Akhtar’s wife, Umira Saleem, on Tuesday, furthering the legal proceedings.

In response to the case, the army authorities issued a written statement indicating that the officer had been arrested on serious charges and was being processed in accordance with the law.

The presiding judge noted that the petitioner’s primary grievance was the alleged wrongful detention of her husband, compounded by her inability to visit him.

LHC seeks reply over arrest of Sheikh Rashid, nephew

The petitioner’s legal counsel, Col. Inamul Rahim, acknowledged that her husband is a serving army officer, thereby subject to the Pakistan Army Act of 1952. Col. Rahim added that the petitioner’s husband had been arrested under Section 73 of the PAA, with the military authorities conducting an investigation pursuant to Section 2(1)(a) of the PAA.

Additional Attorney General Siddique Awan raised objections to the petition’s admissibility under Article 199(3) and 8(3) of the Constitution. Siddique Awan and Lt. Col. Haider Sultan of GHQ’s Law Directorate, in the Defense Ministry’s response, contended that the petition could not be admitted since the serving Brigadier remained under the legal custody of the military authorities.

The Ministry of Defense asserted that the petitioner had been permitted to meet her detained husband. This assertion was corroborated by the court, and the petitioner’s attorney likewise verified that the petitioner had been granted a visit with her husband the previous day.

The Court, citing Article 199(3) of the Constitution, unequivocally stated that it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matters raised in the petition. Subsequently, the court declared the application inadmissible and dismissed it.