Home department told to justify surveillance of cardiologist

Karachi
The Sindh High Court on Tuesday directed the Sindh home secretary to place on record the information due to which the name of a doctor had been placed under Schedule IV of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the past couple of years.
The court issued these directives while hearing the petition of a cardiologist, Dr Akmal Waheed, who sought removal of his name from the fourth schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
Under the fourth schedule, the movement of a person is restrained from his or her permanent residence without prior permission from the police. Moreover, the person whose name is on the list also has to keep the law-enforcers informed of his movements and people he or she meets during the day.
The petitioner, Dr Waheed, said he was exonerated from terrorism charges by the Sindh High Court and the Supreme Court in 2005 and 2006, respectively, but the home department had still placed his name on the fourth schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act and placed restrictions on his movement and other fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.
His counsel, Mohammad Farooq, stated that due to the high-handedness of the police Dr Waheed had migrated to the UAE with his family to work at the Rais al-Khaima Medical Duty and Dental College. However, the intelligence agencies of UAE detained him for two years on the recommendation of Pakistani authorities due to the petitioner’s alleged links with a terrorist organisation after which he was deported in August 2012.
The counsel said Dr Waheed was arrested again by the police when he arrived in Karachi for violating the fourth schedule but he was granted bail by an anti-terrorism court. Since Dr Waheed had obtained bail, said the counsel, he was being continuously harassed by the police who also summoned him for interrogation from time to time, apparently in connection with acts of terrorism in the city.
The counsel said his client was a doctor and had nothing do with any criminal or terrorist activity. He said the doctor was discharging his professional duties at a private clinic.
He told the court that due to the uncalled for and illegal act of the police, Dr Waheed was facing hardships in keeping up his medical practice since he had to leave his patients unattended to appear before the police station concerned where he was often detained for several hours on the pretext of interrogation.
At the previous hearing, the court had observed that the home secretary had been directed to decide the appeal within 30 days after hearing the petitioner. However, the counsel submitted that the matter of petitioner’s representation was not yet decided. Upon this the court directed the home secretary to place on record the material on the basis of which the name of Dr Waheed had been placed under the fourth schedule for the past couple of years and adjourned the hearing for October 20.

Dr Asim’s plea
Meanwhile, the Sindh High Court adjourned the hearing of the petition filed by former federal law minister Dr Asim Hussain’s spouse, Dr Zareen Hussain, who had challenged the detention of her husband under the anti terrorism law.
Dr Zareen, the wife of the detained chairman of the Sindh Higher Education Commission, had filed a petition against the detention of her husband by the Rangers whose personnel had picked him up on August 26.
The petitioner submitted in her application that Dr Hussain had been remanded to Rangers’ custody by an anti-terrorism court for 90-days preventive detention for probing charges of financing terror groups, China-cutting and other matters.
Her counsel, Abid S Zuberi, contended that the detention of Dr Asim under Section
11-EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was contrary to Article 10(4) of the constitution that provided criteria for preventive detention.
He argued that Section 11-EEEE was ultra vires the constitution since the petitioner’s spouse was detained without giving any reasons for 90 days prolonged detention and no person could be detained merely for inquiry in the absence of any credible evidence.
The court after partly hearing the petitioner’s arguments adjourned the hearing till October 15.