The Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued a notice and is seeking an official response to a habeas corpus petition filed by Akmal Khan, who claims he was illegally detained and harassed by the Punjab police following a public rant against the Chief Minister of Punjab.

Petitioner Alleges Forced Arrest During Terrorism Investigation

According to the petition, the LHC had issued an order on November 22 directing authorities not to harass or detain Akmal Khan in connection with the terrorism case he was involved in. Despite that, he was allegedly abducted by Islampura police and later booked in a case by the Rangmehal police, prompting claims of a violation of his personal liberty.

High Court Moves to Protect Fundamental Rights

Justice Farooq Haider presiding over the matter emphasized that the court’s directive was clear on civil protections. The habeas petition argues that Khan’s detention was in contravention of constitutional safeguards and despite the court’s orders, raising serious concerns over police conduct and respect for judicial authority.

Court Seeks Responses from CM Office and Police Authorities

To proceed, the LHC has summoned replies from the Chief Minister’s Office, the Inspector General of Police (Punjab), and district police officials. These responses will determine whether orders for Khan’s arrest originated from higher authorities and establish if civil liberties were unlawfully overridden.

Petitioner Maintains Arrest Was Retaliatory

Akmal Khan’s legal counsel asserts that his detention was intended as retribution for his public criticism of the Chief Minister, rather than any legitimate legal process. The plea cites abuse of power and politically motivated targeting, demanding immediate protection of Khan’s rights and disclosure of arrest justification.

Case Highlights Judicial Oversight in Political Detentions

This legal challenge reflects a growing concern over judicial intervention against politically sensitive arrests. Rights advocates argue that sundry arrests linked to political expression cannot undermine the rule of law, especially when courts have already issued warnings against such actions.

Next Hearing Will Determine Compliance or Contempt Proceedings

At the next hearing, the court will review official responses to assess potential disobedience of judicial orders. If authorities are found to have breached the court’s directive, the LHC may initiate contempt proceedings against those responsible for any unlawful arrests or harassment of the petitioner.

Conclusion: Legal Precedent for Civil Liberties Protection

This case could serve as a significant benchmark in reinforcing civic rights against misuse of state powers. The outcome may clarify limits on police authority, reaffirm habeas corpus protections, and stress the need for transparent procedure even in politically sensitive investigations.