Parliament can do a lot, observes SC judge

The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court observed on Friday that parliament was the relevant forum for the PTI to raise its voice for judicial investigation into the crackdown against the party leadership.

The five-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, maintained the objections of the Registrar Office to another petition of the PTI founder and former party leaders Sher Afzal Marwat for the formation of a separate inquiry commission into the alleged rigging in the general elections.

The bench took up the two petitions for the formation of separate judicial inquiry commissions. The court asked Hamid Khan, the lawyer for the PTI founder, to present his arguments on the Registrar Office's objections. The court also allowed arguments on the main petitions, despite the objections.

However, Riaz Hanif Rahi, the lawyer for Marwat, told the court that he would not argue on the main petition "until the objections are removed, and the petition is assigned the number". Later the hearing was adjourned indefinitely.

Then the court took up the second constitutional petition relating to the formation of a judicial commission on the crackdown and arrests of the PTI leaders and workers. In this case, Salman Akram Raja appeared in the court on behalf of the PTI founder.

Sitting on the bench, Justice Jamal Mandokhail told Raja that the petition stated that the PTI leadership was being targeted, and asked "what does this mean". On that Raja told the court that the party leadership was being mistreated, and several cases had been registered against the PTI leaders.

The lawyer stated that he wanted to assist the court, as to why the formation of a judicial commission was necessary in this situation. He also referred to the case of Intezar Panchota, saying that Panchota was "kidnapped and rescued dramatically".

Also sitting on the bench, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked whether Panchota had recorded his statement with the police. On that Raja replied that Panchota had been told not to meet anyone. Justice Mandokhail said that the matter could be raised in parliament.

"You are in parliament. Parliament is the relevant forum. Go to parliament and raise your voice on it," Justice Mandokhail told the lawyer. On that Raja said that parliament could not do anything about it. However, Justice Mandokhel remarked that parliament could do a lot.

Justice Mandokhel asked the lawyer what the commission of inquiry could do in the situation when cases were being processed in different forums. He added that a similar question arose during the tenure of former chief justice Nasirul Mulk.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that this question was raised in the '35 punctures case'. The case related to the legal proceedings after the PTI founder had levelled allegations of the rigging in the general elections in 2013.

Also sitting on the bench, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the lawyer, as to who had the authority to form the commission of inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act. Raja replied that the authority belonged to the government, but the Supreme Court could also form a commission.

Raja cited an example of Indian Supreme Court, saying that when the state was involved in the Gujarat riots of 2002, the Supreme Court exercised its authority.