ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s (PTI) lengthy-awaited petition, asking for the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and members of his household for his or her alleged involvement within the Panamagate scandal, met the identical destiny because the just lately returned petition filed by the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI).
The Supreme Courtroom workplace on Tuesday handed the petition again to the get together’s Advocate-on-Document Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, a day after it was filed by senior counsel Naeem Bokhari. The objections raised by the courtroom workplace have been similar to those highlighted when the JI petition was returned, i.e. the petition, prima facie (on the face of it), seemed to be frivolous.
The petition, which was filed within the identify of PTI chairman Imran Khan, sought the disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his son-in-regulation retired Captain Mohammad Safdar and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar.
“That this petition prima facie seems to be a frivolous petition inside the contemplation of Order XVII Rule 5 of the Supreme Courtroom Guidelines, 1980,” defined the order issued by the registrar’s workplace when the petition was returned.
Underneath the Rule 5 of Order XVII, the registrar has the authority to refuse to obtain a petition on the grounds that it has not been filed in accordance with the principles, or is frivolous, or accommodates scandalous matter.
Underneath the identical guidelines, the petitioner has the best to maneuver an attraction inside a fortnight of the petition’s return, which might then be heard by a decide of the apex courtroom in his chambers.
“All these questions should have been determined by the courtroom and never the registrar’s workplace,” senior PTI chief Ishaq Khakwani informed Daybreak.
The registrar had violated the Structure, he stated, including that the get together’s authorized staff was rigorously analysing the registrar’s objections and would quickly file an attraction towards the order.
Mr Khakwani recalled that earlier scores of instances have been entertained by the Supreme Courtroom beneath Article 184(three) and such objections have been by no means raised by the registrar’s workplace. “We have now each purpose to consider that the registrar has acted in dangerous religion,” he regretted.
Individually, social gathering spokesperson Naeemul Haq introduced that a authorized staff headed by senior counsel Hamid Khan was within the means of finalising an attraction towards the registrar’s order, which might be moved quickly.
On Aug 27, the courtroom workplace declined to simply accept a petition moved by JI emir Sirajul Haq, the place he had requested the Supreme Courtroom to declare the unlawful switch of nationwide wealth for investments in offshore corporations an offence underneath Part 9 of the Nationwide Accountability Ordinance (NAO).
On Might thirteen, the Supreme Courtroom returned a considerably comparable request from the federal authorities, asking the courtroom to nominate a fee of inquiry to conduct a probe into the Panamagate affair, on the grounds that any such fee shaped underneath the Pakistan Fee of Inquiry Act, 1956 would outcome within the structure of a toothless fee that may serve no helpful function, besides bringing a nasty identify to the judiciary.
The courtroom had additionally declared the phrases of reference — despatched to it by the federal government underneath public strain — “broad and open-ended”, saying that it’d take years for such a fee to shut its proceedings.
On Tuesday, the courtroom workplace knowledgeable the candidates that the petitioner was immediately invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Courtroom beneath Article 184(three) of the Structure — that offers with the ‘enforcement of elementary rights’ – which isn’t permissible in mild of the precedent laid down within the 1998 matter of Zulfikar Mehdi vs PIA.
In that case, the apex courtroom had interpreted the time period ‘public significance’ and laid down that the expression must be seen on the subject of freedom and liberties assured beneath the Structure, their safety and the invasion of those rights in a fashion which raises critical questions relating to their enforcement.
The problems arising in a case can’t be thought-about questions of public significance if a choice on these points solely impacts the rights of a person or a gaggle of people, the judgement had held.
In its order, the registrar workplace additionally said that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Courtroom with out first approaching an applicable discussion board underneath the regulation, not did the petitioner present any justification for not approaching another discussion board.
Equally, the certificates offered by the petitioner alongside the petition didn’t fulfil the necessities of Rule 6 of Order XXV of the Supreme Courtroom guidelines.
This rule requires the applicant to state in clear phrases whether or not the petitioner has moved the involved excessive courtroom for a similar aid, and in that case, what was the end result.
Revealed in Daybreak, August thirty first, 2016
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Sign me up for the newsletter!
The content is the property of the Roznama Urdu and without permission of the publisher will be considered copyright infringement..