LAHORE (HRNW)- Justice Amjad Parvez of the Lahore High Court has recused himself from hearing a petition challenging the approval of the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill 2026, passed by the Punjab Assembly.
The petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by Advocate Yousaf Wain, who has taken the position that the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill 2026 is illegal and unconstitutional.
During the proceedings, Justice Amjad Parvez stated that when the bill was being prepared, he was serving as the Advocate General of Punjab. In view of his previous involvement in the matter, he declined to hear the petition.
Following his recusal, the court returned the case file to the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court for further proceedings.
The petitioner has challenged, among other provisions, the clause under which the names and identities of the judge, prosecution and witnesses would not be disclosed during the trial.
The petition argues that keeping such information confidential violates constitutional guarantees and may affect the principles of a fair and transparent trial.
The petitioner has requested the Lahore High Court to declare the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Bill 2026, as passed by the Punjab Assembly, illegal and unconstitutional.
Human Rights Angle
Anti-terrorism laws must balance the protection of judges, prosecutors and witnesses with the accused’s fundamental rights to due process, a fair trial, legal representation and a transparent judicial process. The court’s eventual interpretation of the contested provisions may have significant implications for both public security and constitutional rights.
HRNW Support Appeal
Support independent journalism focused on human rights, the rule of law and public interest through Human Rights News Worldwide (HRNW):
Disclaimer
This report is based on the information provided regarding the petition and the proceedings. The allegations and legal objections raised in the petition are not judicially established facts. The constitutional validity of the challenged provisions will ultimately be determined by the competent court.
