The Supreme Court is hearing a set of review petitions challenging the court’s verdict on the 2017 sit-in by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) at Faizabad in Islamabad.
A three-member bench — including Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah — have taken up the pleas today.
Authored by Justice Qazi Faez Isa years before he took oath as the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), the searing judgement had instructed the defence ministry and the tri-services chiefs to penalise personnel under their command who were found to have violated their oath.
It had also directed the federal government to monitor those advocating hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute them in accordance with the law.
Adverse observations were also made against several government departments for causing inconvenience to the public as the 20-day sit-in paralysed life in both Islamabad and Rawalpindi.
Pleas were subsequently moved against the verdict by the Ministry of Defence, the IB, the PTI, the Pemra, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid and Ejazul Haq.
However, earlier this week, the Intelligence Bureau and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) approached the apex court, seeking the withdrawal of their review petitions in the case, stating that they did not wish to pursue the matter further.
Meanwhile, Rashid, via Advocate Mehr Khan Malik, had also requested the Supreme Court to adjourn the hearing.
His plea stated that since the AML chief’s counsel, Amanullah Kanrani, had taken over the charge of the law minister for Balochistan, he was not in a position to appear before the apex court.
Prior to the hearing, when asked by a reporter if the PTI intended to withdraw its plea as well, Barrister Ali Zafar replied in the affirmative: “We do not wish to pursue the review petition.”
During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared as the federal government’s counsel while lawyer Hafiz Ahsaan was present as the Pemra’s lawyer. The MQM’s counsel was not present when the hearing began.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Isa observed that Rashid’s counsel had been appointed as a minister, therefore he should have arranged another lawyer in his place.
He then noted, “I want to make a few things clear. This is a regular bench, not a special bench. Review petitions are immediately fixed [for hearing] but these were not fixed for four years.
“One of the judges who pronounced the verdict has retired, therefore, this case was not fixed before that bench,” he clarified.
At this point during the hearing, AGP Awan informed the court that the federal government wished to withdraw its review petition.
Upon the CJP inquiring if there was a reason to do so, the AGP responded, “There is no specific reason. We only want to withdraw the review petition. The federal government does not want to defend the case.”
The top judge then asked,“ Why does [the government] want to withdraw [the plea] now?
“First, it was said that there were mistakes in the verdict. Now, at least tell the reasons for withdrawing it,” he added.
To this, the AGP replied that the government at the time of filing the review pleas was different. CJP Isa then asked why the attorney general did not submit written application for the withdrawal, to which the latter responded that he was “giving his statement”.
Here, the Pemra counsel informed the court, “I am also withdrawing my review petition.” The CJP asked on whose directions he was doing so and remarked, “Comments are made on YouTube channels.”
At this point during the hearing, the PTI’s Barrister Zafar also informed the court that the party did not wish to pursue its review plea.
CJP Isa asked the lawyer if he had the authority to withdraw the petition and observed, “If you want to become a respondent [in the case], the court will allow you.”
However, Zafar responded, “No, we do not want to become a respondent in this case.”
At this point during the hearing, a former Pemra chairman came to the rostrum.
CJP Isa remarked, “Previously, it was said that the verdict is filled with mistakes. Now, are the mistakes no longer there in the verdict?” Is there any reason to withdraw the review petitions?
“The ones who have remained in authority make speeches on the TV and YouTube. It is said ‘we were not heard’. Now we are sitting here to listen [so] come and tell.”
The top judge then observed that the court would keep the Pemra’s petition pending, adding, “So that no one says tomorrow that we were not heard.”
The pleas
The IB’s review petition had urged the court to set aside the adverse observations made against the department, adding that it was a premier civilian intelligence agency which was responsible for state security.
It had contended that the impugned order created a “bad impression” on the public that the IB was involved in unlawful activities and politics, after transgressing constitutional boundaries.
It had said the observations made in the verdict were based on “vague facts” and that during the sit-in, the department was in close contact with the federal and Punjab governments and forewarned them about the plans and intentions of the TLP, with a view to foiling their attempt to storm/lockdown Islamabad.
Meanwhile, In response, the defence ministry had requested the court to set aside the explicit or implicit observations about the armed forces and/or the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The ministry’s petition had said that a host of factors may affect morale. However, it said, what was fatal was the belief amongst the rank and file that their officers while acting like “self-proclaimed saviours” were violating the fundamental rights of citizens and instead of serving “Pakistan and thus all its citizens”, supporting a “particular political party, faction or politician”.
“…When the source of such remarks is the highest court in the land, it can promote fissiparous tendencies and has the capacity to destroy the ability of the armed forces to act as a cohesive fighting force,” the review petition had argued.
It had further said there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the armed forces or ISI were, in any manner, involved with either the sit-in or a particular outcome of the general elections of 2018 or the abridgement of free speech or intimidation or censorship of the press.
In its petition, the ECP had contended that it had comprehensively applied and enforced the Constitution, law and code of conduct by issuing a letter to the TLP on Aug 16, 2017, asking the party to provide details of its bank account and even had issued notices to it with a warning to cancel its registration.
Meanwhile, the PTI had questioned the mention in the verdict of the 2014 joint sit-in organised by it and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek in Islamabad, and had said the impression one gets from it was that the party conducted an illegal protest for publicity and deliberately made wrong allegations.
The petition contended that the party had nothing to do with the TLP Faizabad sit-in and therefore the remarks should be expunged.
Rashid had approached the court to remove his name from the judgement. In his petition, the AML chief pleaded that if the words concerning him in para-4 of the judgement were not expunged, he would suffer adversely in his life.
from The Dawn News - Home https://ift.tt/6U7fQts
Comments
Post a Comment