Govt objects to IHC’s jurisdiction to hear plea against ban on Adiala jail inmates’ political talk

ISLAMABAD: The federal government raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court to hear the petition that challenged a ban on prisoners’ political talks and amendments to the Punjab prison rules.

The amicus curiae Zainab Janjua submitted that there were prisoners of Islamabad in the Adiala prison and courts in Islamabad also issued orders in this regard. She submitted that the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court does not end merely because the Adiala prison is situated as outside the jurisdiction of Islamabad. She suggested that the province of Punjab should also be made party in the case.

The IHC’s Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan issued a written order on the application of Sher Afzal Khan Marwat against Section 265 of the Punjab prisons rules regarding the ban on political speech of prisoners in jail.

The advocate general Islamabad raised an objection to the maintainability on the ground of territorial jurisdiction submitting that the Adiala prison was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, so is the government of Punjab in relation to the administration of the prison rules. He submitted that vires of the prison rules of Punjab in question, the petition is maintainable in the Lahore High Court not before the IHC. The amicus curiae submitted that the objection has surfaced only now and she sought further time to ponder over and submit the appropriate response, but tentatively stated that prisoners in the Adiala prison are prisoners sent into judicial custody by orders of the courts in Islamabad and are kept in that jail as a matter of practical necessity; therefore, the sole point of the Adiala jail physically beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the IHC ought not deprive the court of its jurisdiction because the prisoners in the Adiala jail sent by the Islamabad courts are under judicial custody of Islamabad courts.

The petitioner’s counsel also sought time to respond and obtain further instructions from his client. The court adjourned the hearing till May 17.