The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday indicted Islamabad’s Deputy Commissioner (DC) Irfan Nawaz Memon and three others for contempt in a case pertaining to the prolonged detention of PTI leaders.
IHC has issued an order preventing the Islamabad’s deputy commissioner from exercising Section 3 of Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) powers until further notice.
This decision was made during a hearing related to the detention of PTI leaders Shehryar Afridi and Shandana Gulzar.
Justice Babar Sattar, presiding over the case, ruled that the Islamabad DC cannot utilize the Section 3 MPO powers until the matter is resolved.
Further stated DC Islamabad “There is six months of imprisonment in this case, and you too should stay in jail for some time.”
“You also know how others live in jail,” Justice Babar Sattar added.
The court also requested the attorney general’s assistance in evaluating the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance.
To aid in the process, two judicial assistants, Advocate Salahuddin Ahmed and Advocate Waqar Rana, were appointed.
Previously, the IHC had allowed Shehryar Afridi and Shandana Gulzar to be released from detention under the MPO ordinance.
The court had even considered holding the city Deputy Commissioner and a senior superintendent of police in contempt of court for their prolonged detentions.
During the recent hearing, the court questioned the jurisdiction under which the district magistrate issued MPO orders and requested that the attorney general present the 1965 notification on the matter.
Justice Sattar emphasized the need to comprehend the governance of the federal capital and inquired about any notifications received by the Islamabad DC.
The court found the DC’s response unsatisfactory and summoned the attorney general for further clarification, enlisting the assistance of Advocate Salahuddin Ahmed and Advocate Waqar Rana.
Additionally, Advocate Sher Afzal Marwat requested the return of Shandana Gulzar’s confiscated mobile phones, but the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Operations claimed they had already been returned.
However, the court determined that one of the phones was still missing and ordered its return.