The chief justice of the Lahore High Court set aside the orders removing 20 lawyers of the advocate general’s office on May 15, ruling that the notification was illegal. PHOTO: lhc.gov.pk
Moeed Ayaz, Asmatullah, Razaullah and Ghulamullah, employees of Black Arrow Printing Press, were arrested by Islampura police on January 7. On Friday, their bail petitions under Sections 295B (defiling the Holy Quran) and 298C (an Ahmadi calling himself Muslim or preaching his faith) of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 24A of the Press and Publications Ordinance were heard at the Lahore High Court.
The courtroom was full and some lawyers had to stand while the judge heard the arguments, after which he approved the bails for the suspects. This announcement nearly caused a riot in the courtroom and the judge had to withdraw the order barely two minutes after he had pronounced it. He then referred the case to the chief justice for fixing it before another judge. The judge withdrew the order after harsh remarks from a lawyer who was part of a group of 35 lawyers who had appeared before the court to argue the case against the Ahmedis. Some jurists said it was ‘improper’ for the judge to withdraw his order, whether verbal or written. He should have considered the repercussions, they said, before announcing the order rather than withdrawing it later. On April 9, another LHC judge, after hearing the arguments on the bail petition of a Christian woman accused of blasphemy, referred it to the chief justice for fixing it before another judge.
Law officers
The chief justice of the Lahore High Court set aside the orders removing 20 lawyers of the advocate general’s office on May 15, ruling that the notification was illegal. The CJ said the language used in the notification was objectionable. He said the word ‘removal’ [from office] could stigmatise the lawyers’ careers. The advocate general, however, said the word was derived from law manuals and was not intended to disgrace the lawyers.
YouTube
On May 16, the Lahore High Court gave the Ministry of Information Technology time till June 6 to ask YouTube whether it wanted to appear before the court regarding a petition on lifting the ban on access to the website in Pakistan. Petitioner Bytes for All had submitted that internet censorship was counterproductive and deprived Pakistanis of the right to access information and to counter propaganda against their country or beliefs. Curbing access to YouTube was the modern equivalent of taking away a scholar’s pen, the petitioner said.
Sarabjit Singh
On a request by the Punjab chief minister, the Lahore High Court on May 16 appointed Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi as an inquiry judge to hold a judicial inquiry into the killing of Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh by some prisoners in Kot Lakhpat Jail.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 20th, 2013.
COMMENTS (3)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The environment created by lawyers is not conducive for discharge of justice. The judge was afraid of rioting in his courtroom and had no power to overcome it. Cases against Ahmadis are mostly religiously driven extremism to persecute them so they leave their businesses or run away. The government and the courts instead of alleviating the level of persecution, against lawful Ahmadis running peaceful businesses, contribute to it.
Orders (right or wrong)once issued should not have been withdrawn by the same judge.An intra court appeal was the remedy.However,judge & lawyers know better as one is not a lawyer.
What a milestone achievement of our Judiciary which has increased its respect in the world. Should we be proud of it? I think we should! Who cares about minorities in Pakistan.