LAHORE: A petition challenging the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026, passed by the Punjab Assembly, has taken a significant procedural turn at the Lahore High Court after the judge assigned to hear it recused himself.
Justice Amjad Pervez declined to hear the petition and returned the file to the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court for further proceedings.
Explaining his decision during the hearing, Justice Amjad Pervez said that at the time the bill was being drafted, he was serving as Advocate General Punjab. The court accordingly sent the case file back to the Chief Justice for assignment to another bench.
The recusal follows established judicial practice. A judge who held office as the province’s principal law officer at the time a statute was prepared is placed in a position where prior professional involvement could reasonably be seen to compromise the appearance of impartiality — the standard applied in such cases being not actual bias, but whether a fair-minded observer might apprehend it.
The petitioner, Yousaf Vain Advocate, has challenged the legal status of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026 passed by the Punjab Assembly, taking the position that certain clauses of the amending law conflict with the Constitution and with fundamental rights.
The petition specifically contends that the clause relating to the non-disclosure of the names and faces of the judge, the prosecution and witnesses during the trial of anti-terrorism cases is in conflict with constitutional requirements.
According to the petitioner, an accused person enjoys a constitutional right to a fair trial, and a clause keeping the identity of the judge, prosecutor and witnesses entirely concealed during the proceedings could affect the fundamental legal rights of the accused.
The right invoked is Article 10-A, inserted by the Eighteenth Amendment in 2010, which guarantees to every person the right to a fair trial and due process in the determination of civil rights and obligations or in any criminal charge. Article 25 guarantees equality before the law.
The tension the petition identifies is a genuine one and is not unique to Pakistan. Witness-protection and anonymity regimes exist in a number of jurisdictions confronting organised violence, and are typically justified by the state on the ground that without them, witnesses will not testify at all and prosecutions will collapse. The counter-argument, advanced here, is that anonymity of the tribunal itself — as opposed to protection of a vulnerable witness — cuts to the heart of the accused’s ability to test the evidence against him and to know who is judging him.
Pakistan’s experience with special anti-terrorism procedures dates to the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, subsequently amended many times. The superior courts have repeatedly examined the balance between expedited procedure and due-process guarantees, striking down some provisions and upholding others.
The matter now awaits the Chief Justice’s assignment to a fresh bench. No date has been fixed. The Punjab government has yet to file its written reply on the substance of the challenge.
The Lahore Times will follow this case through its next listing.
Leave a Reply