BEGUM MAZHAR ALI KHAN vs Tim FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of detention of the petitioner's husband in jail custody. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel stated that the detenu had recently been sent out of the country against his consent in exchange for passengers of a hijacked PIA plane. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the matter still warranted adjudication given the changed circumstances. The Supreme Court held that since the detenu was no longer within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistani courts or under the control of the Government of Pakistan or the Provinces, the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, establishing the principle that a habeas corpus or detention petition becomes infructuous when the detenu is removed from the territorial jurisdiction and control of the domestic authorities.
- Does a detention petition become infructuous when the detenu is sent out of the country?
- Can Pakistani courts exercise jurisdiction over a detenu who is no longer within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHEIKH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 2-2-1981 dismissing Writ Petition No. 67 of 1981 by which the petitioner called in question the order of deten--tion of her husband, Sardar Mazhar Ali Khan, in jail custody.
2. Sheikh Shaukat Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, states at the Bar that the detenu is one of the several persons who have recently been sent out of the country in exchange of the passengers of P. I, A. Plane hijacked to Kabul and then to Damascus. According to the learned counsel even the action of sending the detenu out of the country against his consent and by force is not warranted by law.
3. This development has taken place after the decision of the High Court and it lends an altogether different complexion and content to th proceedings. The detenu is no longer within the territorial jurisdietio 't of Courts of Pakistan or within the control or jurisdiction of the Govern--ment of Pakistan or of the Provinces. The petition has been come infructuous for the present and is dismissed accordingly.