SC suggests review of suo motu powers

Reinstates membership of PTI MNA Ghulam Sarwar Khan, which was suspended over a fake degree case.

ISLAMABAD:

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has recommended a review of the top court’s suo motu powers under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

After restoring Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawmaker Ghulam Sarwar Khan as a member of the National Assembly on Thursday, the bench led by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali advised Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to constitute a larger bench for setting parameters over the use of the Supreme Court’s suo motu powers under the aforementioned article.

Article 184(3) of the Constitution allows the top court to pass a ruling over any matter it deems to be of ‘public importance’, either through suo motu notice or by admitting a petition invoking the article.

“The time has come to correct the mistakes made while taking suo motu notices,” Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed during the hearing of a petition filed by the now-reinstated PTI MNA.

“An endless process will start if parliamentarians are disqualified on voters’ complaints,” observed Justice Jamali.

Ghulam Sarwar Khan’s membership of the lower house of Parliament was suspended by a  three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by then chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on July 18, 2013 over a fake degree case.



His academic credentials had been challenged in court by a petitioner, Raja Qamar, who moved an application under Article 184(3).

Sarwar’s counsel Abdul Hafeez Peerzada pointed this fact out while requesting the bench to recall its interim order against his client during Thursday’s proceedings. He said the Supreme Court would open itself up to criticism by disqualifying parliamentarians when the Constitution already provided voters a proper forum to raise complaints against their representatives.

Peerzada added that the court must also examine the credentials of any petitioner who moves an application under Article 184(3). Justice Nasir also expressed shock over how the Supreme Court could pass an interim ruling over a petition that was not maintainable. “It is the duty of election tribunals to decide whether parliamentarians should be disqualified. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to intervene in these matters,” he observed.

Justice Jamali, meanwhile, called for reviewing the extent of the top court’s jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and said the matter should be reviewed by a larger bench. “We have made it clear through the missing persons cases that all institutions, including the judiciary, should follow the Constitution while exercising their power,” he said.

Speaking on the eve of the Supreme Court’s full court reference in honour of former chief justice Chaudhry on December 11 last year, Chief Justice Jillani had said: “In the process of re-thinking and re-evaluation of our role as judges I may like to share… there is a perception shared by many that the thin line of distinction between the requirements of Article 199 and 184(3) is being blurred. There is need to consider/determine the limits and contours of jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the constitution with a view to discourage frivolous petitions and to prevent the misuse of jurisdiction by vested interests.”

During his tenure as chief justice, Chaudhry disqualified several other parliamentarians as well – over fake degrees and dual nationalities – while entertaining petitions filed by professional litigants.


Published in The Express Tribune, April 4^th, 2014.