ludUO

health every four days. The detainees were also not to be shifted to the
Parachinar internment centre so long as the matter was pending in the court.
Further, the court asked the Attorney-General and the counsel for ISI and
MI to submit the record of the prisoners’ detention prior to January 26, 2012.
The court also wanted to know whether the detainees had been proceeded
against under any law and if so, what the result was.
All the detainees were taken to the Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar.
Five of them, who were said to have recovered, were later on sent to the
Parachinar internment centre.
Ruhaifa died soon after seeing her (unrecognizable) sons, Abdul Majid
and Abdul Basit, in the SC, and her petition lapsed. The court, however, allowed
her lawyer to amend the petition. The case was clubbed together with petitions
challenging the Action in Aid of Civil Power Regulation of 2011 and sec 2(1 d)
of the Army Act 1952. To be able to hold the detention of anyone at the
Parachinar internment centre, or any other centre in the FATA, illegal, the
court wanted to make sure that its jurisdiction could be extended to the tribal
areas.
The surviving members of the Adiala Eleven remained incarcerated.
The case will be long remembered as one of the instances of the SC’s will
being frustrated through resort to one strategem or another.
Challenge to Army Act
Faced with the possibility of an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court, the
army agreed to remove a serious flaw in the Army Act 1952.
The petitioner had challenged the rule under which anyone convicted by a
court martial under the Army Act was given neither a copy of the judgment
nor were grounds of conviction communicated to him. This caused problems
while filing an appeal. The SC was requested to direct the army to amend the
Act of 1952 as the laws applicable to the navy and the air force had already
been amended. The counsel for the army argued that the Army Act was older
than the laws made for the two other services and amending it could entail
replacement of half of the Act. The court observed that anything in conflict
with Article 10-A (the right to fair trial/guaranteed under the 18th amendment)
would be struck down. The impugned provision of the Army Act could also
be struck down under Article 25 on the ground of its being discriminatory.
The counsel was asked to ascertain the army’s mind.
On the next hearing the court was told the army authorities were prepared
to amend the Act of 1952 but needed time to do so. Action was awaited.
Election matters
The Supreme Court intervened more than once in election-related matters.
At the beginning of the year the court rejected the Election Commission’s
39
State of Human Rights in 2012