Hubdar Hussain Malik vs Deputy Commissioner Chakwal and another
The petitioner, a member of the Shiite community, sought a writ of mandamus from the High Court to mandate permanent security arrangements for an annual religious procession during Moharram-ul-Haram. The High Court initially disposed of the petition after the administration assured security measures, and subsequent attempts to review the order and file an Intra Court Appeal were unsuccessful as the event had already passed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that permanent security directions were necessary regardless of the passage of time. The Supreme Court held that while the Constitution guarantees the right to profess and practice religion, this right is subject to law, public order, and morality. The Court determined that security arrangements are administrative matters involving resource allocation and threat assessment, which fall within the discretion of state functionaries. Consequently, the Court ruled that such matters are not justiciable, emphasizing that authorities must be granted the autonomy to manage security based on evolving public interest and threat assessments, rather than judicial micromanagement.
- Are security arrangements for religious processions justiciable issues subject to judicial direction?
- Does the constitutional right to profess and practice religion require the judiciary to mandate specific security measures for religious events?
- To what extent should state functionaries have autonomy in determining security measures for public events?
- Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.--The petitioner, a Shiite Muslim, sought issuance of a mandamus for security arrangements regarding a procession during the month of Moharram-ul-Haram that he claimed to be an annual ritual in the village since the time immemorial; relying upon various Articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, he prayed the High Court to issue appropriate directions to the Deputy Commissioner Chakwal to set in place the measures suggested in the Constitution petition; the request was disposed of by a learned Judge-in-Chamber, in the following terms: As Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal/respondent No.1 has already sent an intimation to the District Police Officer Chakwal/respondent No.2 for provision of security as per previous practice/SOPs and Assistant Commissioner as well as DSP, in attendance; ensure that they will make best efforts that no untoward situation occurs and provide the security as per law; learned counsel for the petitioner feels satisfied and under instructions states that they will conclude the Majlis within 45 minutes, hence, the petition is disposed of as such."
The petitioner sought review of the order through an application, dismissed in limine on 18.9.2019; his next move through an Intra Court Appeal met with no better fate on 01.10.2019, as the event had by then peacefully passed by.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the flux of time a permanent security arrangement as proposed by the petitioner is required to ensure peace and tranquility during the month of Moharram-ul-Haram and, thus, it was incumbent upon the High Court to issue the directions prayed for.
3. Heard.
4. Subject to law, public order and morality, the Constitution confers upon every citizen the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; in a normal/ideal situation, profession and practice of a particular faith by a believer or group thereof should not pose any issue, calling for intervention of State functionaries, however, the state of affairs unfortunately, over the time, has deteriorated alarmingly; routine events of the past have now become, more often than not, security nightmares with no recession or respite being in sight, therefore, with mounting pressures and threats, the functionaries, tasked with the responsibility to maintain peace and tranquility in the society in order to ensure safety of human lives, must' be provided autonomy of discretion with enough space to carry out their job without let or hindrance; security measures are resource intensive arrangements with financial impacts upon public exchequer, therefore, it is essential as well as expedient that exercise of freedom is reasonably regulated on administrative considerations on the paramountcy of larger public interest. The functionaries are the best Judges to evaluate the nature and magnitude of threats so as to take all appropriate remedial measures/ steps required to obviate impending disasters; these are not justiciable issues and, thus, the learned Judge-in-Chamber had rightly heeded the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner Chakwal; peaceful conclusion of the event amply vindicates his position. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 4 cases
- Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc 2021 LHC 5524, 2022 PLD Lahore 197
- Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc 2022 [M] CLR 1108
- Azhar Abbas Haideri vs Government Of The Punjab and others 2022 PLD Lahore 278
- Saif Ali Versus Deputy Commissioner, Lahore 2026 PCrLJ 413