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.