In a petition claiming that the oath in election forms is against the injunctions of Islam, a federal law officer argued that only the Federal Shariat Court can hear and decide the issue.
Appearing before Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi on Thursday, Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Ashraf Mughal said that the petition is not maintainable. Under Article 203-D, only the Shariat Court is an appropriate forum where the issue can be resolved, he argued. He asked the court to decline the hearing and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner Haji Gul Ahmed, the chief of Islamic Organisation for Social Reforms, had complained that the wordings of the oath do not show in whose name a candidate swears. In the case of Muslims, it is commanded that whenever a Muslim swears it shall be in the name of Allah, he said.
He asked the court to direct the chief election commissioner to make the necessary corrections and bring the oath in conformity with the dictates of the Holy Quran and Sunnah. He cited the federal government, the election commissioner and all political parties as respondents.
The petitioner was already on notice to explain to the court whether or not the petition is maintainable and point out the defects with the clauses of the oath.
The petitioner attended the hearing on Thursday and argued that the petition is maintainable. After the addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution, the high courts are empowered to hear and decide whether or not a law is against the injunctions of Islam, he said.
He also relied upon a policy statement by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who said that superior courts could examine any law if it is violating Islamic teachings. After this clarification, no one could question the powers of the superior courts to hear and decide such issues, he said.
The DAG found it difficult to argue at length so he asked the court to adjourn the proceedings so that he can seek instructions from the respondent federal government and prepare the case.
Meanwhile, the petitioner opposed the adjournment and asked the court to issue notices to the political parties, also cited as respondents.
The bench declined the request and said that if the federal government is unable to thrash out the matter, the remaining respondents would then be put on notice.
The next hearing will be held immediately after summer vacations.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 3rd, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ