Enforcing Faizabad sit-in verdict could have prevent Jaranwala: CJP

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday remarked that if the Faizabad sit-in verdict had been enforced, it could have prevented the Jaranwala incident. The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on a series of petitions challenging the judgment until November 1.

A three-member bench led by the chief justice, alongside Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah, presided over the pleas challenging the top court's judgment in the Faizabad sit-in case, which directed intelligence agencies not to exceed their constitutional mandates.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Ministry of Defence, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) submitted applications to withdraw their pleas. Similar applications had previously been filed by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra).

Chief Justice Isa expressed his curiosity about the withdrawal of the review petitions, suggesting that there might have been an order to file them. He emphasized the importance of accountability for the future of Pakistan and questioned why there seemed to be hesitation in telling the truth about filing review petitions. He also suggested that the petitioners should bear the cost of filing frivolous review petitions.

The chief justice raised significant questions regarding the case, pondering whether all institutions were now directly controlled, why these review petitions had not been addressed over the past four years, and whether powerful forces were influencing case scheduling. He emphasized the accountability of everyone, including the court, to the people.

Additionally, Chief Justice Isa inquired about accountability for the killings that occurred in Karachi on May 12, 2007, during the hearing. Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan assured the court that the Faizabad sit-in judgment would be implemented.

Ultimately, the bench adjourned the proceedings until November 1.

Case History

Several review petitions were filed against the verdict authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa on February 6, 2019. This judgment pertained to a sit-in staged by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) in Faizabad in 2017.

In this scathing judgment, authored by Justice Isa, it directed the country's intelligence agencies, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Intelligence Bureau (IB), Military Intelligence (MI), and the army's media wing, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), not to exceed their constitutional mandate.

The judgment specifically addressed the role of intelligence agencies during a 20-day sit-in organized by the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) party at the intersection of Rawalpindi and Islamabad in November 2017. The TLP had initiated the protest in response to alleged changes made in lawmakers’ oath, affirming that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) is the last messenger of Allah, through the Elections Bill 2017. The protesters demanded the resignation of the then-law minister, Zahid Hamid.

These protests disrupted daily life in the twin cities for 20 days, leading to multiple rounds of negotiations between the government and protesters. Ultimately, Zahid Hamid resigned on November 27, 2017, meeting the TLP's demands.

On November 21, 2017, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings regarding the sit-in. On November 22, 2018, a two-judge bench comprising Justice Isa and Justice Mushir Alam reserved their ruling. The Supreme Court unveiled its 43-page judgment authored by Justice Isa on February 6, 2019.

In this 2019 judgment, Justice Isa emphasized that the Constitution explicitly prohibited members of the armed forces from engaging in any form of political activity, including supporting a political party, faction, or individual. The verdict directed the government of Pakistan, through the Ministry of Defence and the respective chiefs of the army, navy, and air force, to take action against personnel under their command found in violation of their oath.

Additionally, the judgment instructed the federal government to monitor individuals advocating hate, extremism, and terrorism, prosecuting them in accordance with the law. The judgment also included adverse observations about various government departments and public sector entities, as the 20-day sit-in severely disrupted life in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that no entity, including government departments or intelligence agencies, could infringe upon the fundamental right of freedom of speech, expression, and press beyond the boundaries outlined in Article 19 of the Constitution. Justice Isa emphasized that those resorting to such tactics under the mistaken belief that they served a higher goal were deluding themselves.

He concluded by asserting that Pakistan is governed by the Constitution, and obedience to the Constitution and the law is the inviolable duty of every citizen, no matter where they are, and of every person within Pakistan at any given time.PetitionersAt least eight review petitions were filed against the judgment shortly after it was issued.

Among the petitioners were various political parties and organisations such as the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rashid and Ejazul Haq, Intelligence Bureau (IB) and defence ministry (ISI).

Earlier this week, however, the IB and Pemra withdrew their petitions stating that they do not wish to pursue the matter anymore.

Meanwhile, Rashid, via Advocate Mehr Khan Malik, had also reportedly requested the apex court to adjourn the hearing.

The pleas were not taken up during the tenures of the last three chief justices, namely Asif Saeed Khosa, Gulzar Ahmed and Umar Ata Bandial.

Soon after the judgment, speculations were rife that the then PTI government was planning to file a presidential reference against Justice Isa. The reference was filed in the same year and later quashed by the apex court.