FSC rejects plea seeking single-party system

Court declares having multiple parties in accordance with Islam

ISLAMABAD:

The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) has rejected a petition seeking the declaration that the multi-party system was against the injunctions of Islam and should be replaced with a one-party one in the country.

"It is the fundamental requirement of any consultation that all or any point of view must be brought to light through a consultative process in order to reach ... a just and right conclusion. This equitable and democratic way of making decisions at any level, including at the collective national level, is required by the Holy Quran [as mentioned in a verse of] Surah Ash-Shura,” read a seven- page detailed judgement authored by FSC Judge Justice Dr Syed Muhammad Anwer.

“It was the practice of the Holy Prophet (SAW) that usually he heard and sought different opinions from different persons or different groups of persons before arriving at a final decision concerning the administrative affairs of the government", the verdict added.

A three-judge FSC bench, led by Chief Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, heard the petition filed by Advocate Sardar Abdul Qudoos, requesting that Article 3, 4 and 5 of Political Parties Order, 2002 and all laws relating to the multi-party system should be declared against the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

It was further prayed that a law for a single-party system should be adopted in accordance with the injunctions of Islam.

"The Shariat Petition of the petitioner is not at all maintainable as it is in direct conflict [with] Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to be precise Article 17(2) of the Constitution, which makes it a fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan to form a political party or to be a member of any political party,” the judgment stated.

“The formation and presence of a political party within the country is one of the fundamental rights given by the Constitution, which is guaranteed and also protected by Article 17 of the Constitution, titled ‘Freedom of Association’,” it continued.

The verdict highlighted that the purpose of having different political parties in a polity to represent different points of view and to highlight the issues from every aspect before the government was not against the teachings of Islam. Rather. It added that this concept was in conformity with the injunctions of Islam.

“According to the injunctions of Islam, consultation is recommendatory upon the authorities, policymakers and stakeholders. Islam gives liberty to every citizen or a group of citizens to object and raise questions on any issue of governance, for which they want clarification, and the government is supposed to answer all such questions,” the judgment read.

It further noted that it was clear from Surah An-Nisa that a Muslim society could have a difference of opinion.

It added that in case a dispute erupted among different groups of Muslims, then it must be referred to Allah as well as to His Prophet (SAW).

"According to Verse 38 of Surah Ash-Shurah … consultation is advised to the Muslims in order to reach … the right conclusion regarding any matter, including the matters related to governance and policy, which a government is supposed to adopt and implement,” the FSC noted.

The court further observed that the term of ‘Parliament” was introduced and incorporated in the Constitution through a Presidential Order Number 14 of 1985.

"By virtue of this constitutional amendment, the title of [the] earlier Article 50 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, containing the definition of ‘Parliament’ was substituted by the term ‘Majlis-e-Shoora’,” the verdict stated.

“Resultantly, the word ‘Parliament’ was put in parenthesis in front of an Urdu term ‘Majlis-e-Shoora’. The purpose of introduction of this amendment was to highlight the importance of consultation between different political parties or groups, etc., which are democratically elected and are present in parliament. In other words, parliament, which is a place of debate and consultation between different political parties, is supposed to undertake the consultation for the benefit of public at large as well as for the government, which is in accordance to the spirit of Islamic injunctions," it pointed out.

The FSC noted that the practice of raising objections against the functioning of a government in a society in a civil and democratic way is a part of a consultative process.

It continued that it could not be carried out in the absence of persons of different political thoughts as well as groups or political parties and the purpose of the Political Parties Order, 2002 was to address this issue.

“To have a constructive, healthy consultative process can only be promoted through the political parties of a polity, and that is the main purpose of the impugned law according to its preamble," the verdict read.

The judgment noted that Articles 51, 63-A, 175, 224 and many others of the Constitution also mentioned the participation and working of political parties in the country’s polity.