In detailed verdict, top court declares Imran Khan’s May 9 arrest 'unlawful'

• Imran’s arrest from court premises blocked his recourse to judicial relief: SC.
• "Manner in which arrest was executed, lowered authority of high court."
• PTI chief’s arrest was declared illegal for violating of court’s dignity.

ISLAMABAD: A three-member bench of the Supreme Court on Friday issued a detailed judgment explaining reasons behind its decision to declare Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan’s arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case “unlawful”.

The former prime minister was arrested from the premises of Islamabad High Court (IHC) by the paramilitary forces on May 9, triggering violent protests and attacks on the civil and military installations in the country.

Following Khan’s arrest, IHC CJ Farooq took notice of the matter on the same day, and summoned the Islamabad IGP and the interior secretary. Subsequently, the court summoned NAB DG and the anti-graft body's prosecutor general to appear in person. After hearing the arguments from all the parties, the IHC declared the deposed prime minister’s arrest “legal”.

The former premier’s lawyer, Barrister Ali Zafar, then petitioned the apex court on his behalf for Khan’s release. 

On May 11, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Athar Minallah took up Khan’s petition and directed NAB to present the PTI chairman before the court.

The top court termed Khan’s arrest in the Al-Qadir Trust case “illegal” and authorities have been ordered to release him “immediately”.

The apex court sent the PTI chief to the Police Lines Guest House and ordered him to present himself before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) by the next day, the same court which declared his arrest legal, while also setting the precedence that no person will be arrested within the premises of a court.

In its detailed verdict, the Supreme Court noted that before reproducing the short order dated 11.05.2023, it was important to note that during the course of the hearing, this court made it abundantly clear to all learned counsels who were present that the sole question of law before it was the legality of the mode and manner in which the arrest warrant dated 01.05.2023 was executed inside the premises of the high court.

“That this Court was not concerned either with the legality of the arrest warrant or with the proceedings being undertaken by NAB in the investigation against the petitioner in the AQT Case. That those were matters which may, if at all, be determined by the competent fora in the appropriate proceedings,” read the verdict.

Dignity, sanctity and safety of the courts

The top court wrote in its verdict that it is a well-settled principle that the dignity, sanctity and safety of the courts for the benefit of all concerned stakeholders are inviolable and cannot be compromised. The SC bench noted that the breach of this assurance undermines the effective dispensation of justice by deterring people from seeking the resolution of their disputes from the courts.

“Therefore, to safeguard the peoples’ right to access the Superior Courts and accordingly to seek justice, Article 204 of the Constitution has conferred this Court (and the High Courts) with the power to punish any person interfering with or obstructing the process of the Superior Courts in any way or prejudicing the determination of a matter pending before them,” read the verdict.

‘Violation of fundamental rights’

The three-member SC bench said having surrendered before the high court to invoke its jurisdiction, the petitioner’s arrest from the high court premises preemptively blocked his recourse to the judicial relief of prearrest bail and thereby violated his fundamental right of access to justice.

The top court observed that such action also interfered with the working of the high court, intervened in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction and obstructed its process.

“The manner and mode in which the arrest was executed, namely, the breaking of the door, glass partitions and windows of the bio-metric verification room and the manhandling and injuring of a number of lawyers, high court staff and police personnel undermined and lowered the authority of the high court and disturbed its decorum. As a result thereof, the short order dated 11.05.2023 declared the arrest of the petitioner to be invalid and unlawful for violating the dignity, sanctity and safety of the high court,” read the verdict.