ISLAMABAD: The Military Intelligence (MI) said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday that an army man and a subject under the Army Act 1952 could not be investigated by any court, even the apex court, or police.

In its reply to an application filed by one Abida Malik requesting the Supreme Court to order production of her husband Tasif Ali alias Danish, the MI stated that neither the court or police had the jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and, therefore, the application should be dismissed.

Tasif Ali, who went missing on Nov 23, 2011, was allegedly picked up by Major Haider of the MI. The matter was reported to the Sadiqabad police station on Dec 5 last year. The Lahore High Court heard the case on March 19 this year, but dismissed it.

The MI reply filed by Advocate Raja Mohammad Ibrahim Satti rejected the allegations and said Tasif had neither been apprehended nor held by the MI. Major Haider was neither posted to the place concerned nor had any role in Tasif’s abduction.

At the last hearing on May 20, the Supreme Court had ordered police to produce Tasif Ali, especially when the Sadiqabad police had also registered a case on May 7 on the statement of Abida Malik.

The court had on May 29 also ordered former attorney general Irfan Qadir to get a report from the defence ministry and record the statement of Major Haider in one week.

Subsequently, a team of Sadiqabad police led by SHO Tanveer Javed Warraich visited Mirpur in Azad Kashmir to arrest and record the statement of Major Haider. The commander of the unit concerned called the Superintendent Police Rawalpindi in the presence of the police team and informed him that no person with the name of Major Haider had ever been posted at the set-up (MI post) and that it had no link with the abduction of Tasif Ali.

The SP was asked to approach through proper channel so that their queries could be addressed accordingly.

The MI reply said the army act was a protected law under Article 8(3 a) of the constitution and none of its provisions could be declared void being inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights.

“Therefore the application filed by Abida Malik is not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the constitution,” it argued.

The reply cited a number of sections of the army act and said section 24 dealt with the offences committed by a person subject to the army act and section 59 dealt with the civil offences. Sections 73 to 76 envisage procedure regarding investigation, arrest, inquiry and proceedings before trial.

Likewise chapter IX of the army act deals with the jurisdiction and power of the court martial whereas section 99 explains about the appellate revision power.