LHC seeks arguments on anti-terror bill's legality

The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Friday sought arguments on the maintainability of a petition challenging the Punjab Assembly-approved Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2026, questioning how the legislation was prima facie unconstitutional and how the petition itself was maintainable. Justice Shahram Sarwar Chaudhry heard the petition filed by Punjab Assembly Opposition Leader Muhammad Moeenuddin Riaz. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the amendment was unlawful and that provisions allowing the identities and faces of judges, prosecutors and witnesses to be concealed during trials were contrary to the Constitution. The lawyer asked the court to declare the amendment approved by the Punjab Assembly illegal. Justice Shahram Sarwar Chaudhry, however, asked the counsel to explain how the legislation was prima facie unconstitutional and also questioned the maintainability of the petition. The counsel sought time to assist the court on the issue. The court directed him to advance arguments on maintainability at the next hearing and adjourned further proceedings. Riaz has challenged the constitutional validity of newly inserted Section 21AAA of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which provides for "special security cases" in which the identities of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, police officers and witnesses may be kept secret and the entire trial record sealed. The petitioner, an elected MPA from PP-215, Multan, has sought the striking down of Section 21AAA, arguing that it undermines fundamental rights relating to fair trial, due process, dignity, access to information and equality before law guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 14, 19-A and 25 of the Constitution. According to the petition, the provision inserted through the Anti-Terrorism (Punjab Amendment) Act 2026 allows a government-designated officer not below BS-20 to declare a case or class of cases a "special security case" if extraordinary protection is considered necessary. Under the challenged mechanism, the identities of judges, public prosecutors, police officers, witnesses, defence counsel and other persons involved in proceedings are not to be disclosed. Judicial orders may be signed without the personal identities of judges, witnesses may be assigned specific identities and the names of judges and prosecutors are not to be published in the official Gazette, the petition states.