LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that detention order under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance cannot be passed merely on the basis of criminal cases registered against a detenu in the past. The court observed that it amounts to double jeopardy that is vexing someone twice for one and the same charge. The court remarked that mere apprehensions which are not supported by any cogent as well as substantial material cannot be allowed to curtail liberty or right of freedom of any citizen guaranteed by the constitution. The court also observed that for passing detention order of person under the Ordinance, the competent authority must have reasons to believe that said person acted in a manner prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order. The court passed this order in a petition of Umme-Kalsoom mother of detenu Aqeel Haider. The court set aside the impugned detention order and directed to release the detenue forthwith, if not required in any other case. The court said the objection raised by the law officer regarding maintainability of this petition due to non-filing of representation by the detenu before the Punjab government is concerned, right to file habeas corpus petition is remedy provided by the constitution in all the matters of illegal confinement as one of fundamental rights. If arrest of a person for the purpose of “Preventive Detention” cannot be justified in the eyes of law, then there is no reason that why the said person should not invoke jurisdiction of this court for his immediate release, the court added. The court said, perusal of the available record reveals that allegations levelled against the detenu were general in nature and reports of the deputy commissioner, and the district police officer, does not show any reliable material to invoke the Ordinance except apprehensions. Even the law officer could not refer any previous criminal record of the detenu regarding his any activity against the government except eight criminal cases which are mentioned in the impugned order, the court said. The court said if for the sake of arguments, any affectee was not willing to file formal complaint against detenu due to his fear, even then, station house officer and other police officials of concerned police station were quite competent to record Rapt regarding any such activity of the detenu in the general diary of the police station, but record of any such Rapt is neither mentioned in impugned order nor has been produced before this court. The impugned order has been passed against the settled principles of law on the subject and without any valid reason/cogent material hence not sustainable in the eyes of law, the court concluded. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026