SC can not act as 'guarantor', says PPP, JI
Both parties requested SC to pass any just and fair order as might be deemed appropriate in the circumstances
ISLAMABAD:
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamat-e-Islami (JI) submitted a written reply related to the ongoing protests, stating that the Supreme Court cannot act as a ‘guarantor’ to end the ongoing political unrest.
On the other hand, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) proposed 16 questions in its reply to the Lahore High Court Bar Association-Rawalpindi bench's petition that called for determining Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the scope of Fundamental Rights of Assembly in accordance with the Constitution.
Senator Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan submitted a reply on behalf of the PPP and JI in the apex court, stating that no circumstances could provide justification for any extra or unconstitutional act by any of the state’s functionaries.
The reply stated that rigging in elections can not be made grounds for dissolution of any provincial assembly or government as it would be in direct violation of 18th amendment of the Constitution which guarantees provincial autonomy.
“This obviously means that ‘rigging issues’ relating to National Assembly could not be made a ground or excuse for dissolution of any provincial assembly or government otherwise; it would be in violation of the principle of federation as held by the apex court’s three judgments”
The reply referred to the SC’s judgement in the Asghar Khan case, where the SC had ruled that in political affairs of the country or holding free and fair election, no role could be played by the secret agencies or officials thereof to favor one political party, group or individual over another. The reply further stated that the court is the apex court to ‘adjudicate’ cases and controversies between the parties to proceedings before the court under its constitutional or statutory jurisdiction.
The reply further stated that the court should uphold the separation of power, independence of judiciary and rule of law and Constitution, to ensure level playing field for all political actors with no role for an ‘outside umpire’ .
“Thus no issue whether political or otherwise could be taken outside the ambit of basic concept of supremacy of constitution”
Both parties expressed their expectation that the court would not go into the larger questions that are political in nature and require political deliberation and consideration in Parliament or otherwise.
“These may include the ‘future reforms relating to ‘Election Law’ or conduct of elections and what steps to be taken or forum used for amicable and peaceful settlement of the instant political crisis including but not limited to the allegations of rigging”
The reply further stated that several elections were held in the past as part of the democratic process, however some of them were seriously alleged to have been ‘rigged’. “Well organised rigging relating to the overall mandate is quite different from the allegations of rigging by one candidate in a constituency or another”
Suggesting the court to direct all the political parties to resolve the political crisis, the reply stated that undertaking any further role by the apex court may not be very germane to its constitutional role.
While referring Article 5 of the Constitution, the PPP and JI submitted that seriousness of the political crisis, circumstances or agitation cannot result in, lead to or cause or provide any justification whatsoever for taking extra or unconstitutional actions at the instance of a part or of any agency or authority of the federal government or state or any other body whatsoever.
Both parties then requested the top court to pass any just and fair order as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
PTI's reply
On behalf of PTI, Barrister Yousaf Khosa has asked; whether the Supreme Court has got the jurisdiction to grant the Constitution petition 74/2014 in terms of Article 184(3) read with Article 199 of the Constitution? Does the definition of ‘person’ provided in Article 199 (5) read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution include a political party duly registered under laws, particularly in terms of a direction by the Supreme Court to such a political party for its compliance?
PTI questioned whether any judgment can be passed by the Supreme Court to direct or regulate a political gathering (dharna) with retrospective effect? What does the word ‘dharna’ mean in the context of the existing constitutional petition 74/2014? How should a political dharna be regulated in the future i.e. by way of the judgment of this Court or enactment of legislation pertaining to the same; balancing the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution; State’s role in the regulation of dharna; and use of force by the police or any other laws enforcement agencies of the State?
Is there at present, any pertinent legislation which regulates ‘dharna’ in Pakistan? What is the scope of Article 16 of Constitution in respect of such dharna? What amounts to a reasonable restriction imposed by the law? What would fall under the remit of ‘interest of public order’?
Where does the test lie for determining the extent of the reasonableness of the restrictions and what actions would be in the interest of the public order? What is the redressal mechanism for citizens, who are of the view that they have been deprived of their rights to assembly as provided under the constitution and deprived unlawfully by the State?
What is the scope of Article 19 of the Constitution? What is the redressal mechanism available against those who have breached constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19?
What are the responsibilities and obligations of the government against whom such a political dharna is being staged? Who and how, will regulate the actions of the government against whom such a dharna is to be or being exercised?
What is the balance among various Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 9,12,15,16,17,18 and 19 of the Constitution read with Article 4 and 5 of the Constitution and whether the state machinery can curb one right on the pretext of protecting the other?
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamat-e-Islami (JI) submitted a written reply related to the ongoing protests, stating that the Supreme Court cannot act as a ‘guarantor’ to end the ongoing political unrest.
On the other hand, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) proposed 16 questions in its reply to the Lahore High Court Bar Association-Rawalpindi bench's petition that called for determining Supreme Court's jurisdiction and the scope of Fundamental Rights of Assembly in accordance with the Constitution.
Senator Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan submitted a reply on behalf of the PPP and JI in the apex court, stating that no circumstances could provide justification for any extra or unconstitutional act by any of the state’s functionaries.
The reply stated that rigging in elections can not be made grounds for dissolution of any provincial assembly or government as it would be in direct violation of 18th amendment of the Constitution which guarantees provincial autonomy.
“This obviously means that ‘rigging issues’ relating to National Assembly could not be made a ground or excuse for dissolution of any provincial assembly or government otherwise; it would be in violation of the principle of federation as held by the apex court’s three judgments”
The reply referred to the SC’s judgement in the Asghar Khan case, where the SC had ruled that in political affairs of the country or holding free and fair election, no role could be played by the secret agencies or officials thereof to favor one political party, group or individual over another. The reply further stated that the court is the apex court to ‘adjudicate’ cases and controversies between the parties to proceedings before the court under its constitutional or statutory jurisdiction.
The reply further stated that the court should uphold the separation of power, independence of judiciary and rule of law and Constitution, to ensure level playing field for all political actors with no role for an ‘outside umpire’ .
“Thus no issue whether political or otherwise could be taken outside the ambit of basic concept of supremacy of constitution”
Both parties expressed their expectation that the court would not go into the larger questions that are political in nature and require political deliberation and consideration in Parliament or otherwise.
“These may include the ‘future reforms relating to ‘Election Law’ or conduct of elections and what steps to be taken or forum used for amicable and peaceful settlement of the instant political crisis including but not limited to the allegations of rigging”
The reply further stated that several elections were held in the past as part of the democratic process, however some of them were seriously alleged to have been ‘rigged’. “Well organised rigging relating to the overall mandate is quite different from the allegations of rigging by one candidate in a constituency or another”
Suggesting the court to direct all the political parties to resolve the political crisis, the reply stated that undertaking any further role by the apex court may not be very germane to its constitutional role.
While referring Article 5 of the Constitution, the PPP and JI submitted that seriousness of the political crisis, circumstances or agitation cannot result in, lead to or cause or provide any justification whatsoever for taking extra or unconstitutional actions at the instance of a part or of any agency or authority of the federal government or state or any other body whatsoever.
Both parties then requested the top court to pass any just and fair order as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
PTI's reply
On behalf of PTI, Barrister Yousaf Khosa has asked; whether the Supreme Court has got the jurisdiction to grant the Constitution petition 74/2014 in terms of Article 184(3) read with Article 199 of the Constitution? Does the definition of ‘person’ provided in Article 199 (5) read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution include a political party duly registered under laws, particularly in terms of a direction by the Supreme Court to such a political party for its compliance?
PTI questioned whether any judgment can be passed by the Supreme Court to direct or regulate a political gathering (dharna) with retrospective effect? What does the word ‘dharna’ mean in the context of the existing constitutional petition 74/2014? How should a political dharna be regulated in the future i.e. by way of the judgment of this Court or enactment of legislation pertaining to the same; balancing the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution; State’s role in the regulation of dharna; and use of force by the police or any other laws enforcement agencies of the State?
Is there at present, any pertinent legislation which regulates ‘dharna’ in Pakistan? What is the scope of Article 16 of Constitution in respect of such dharna? What amounts to a reasonable restriction imposed by the law? What would fall under the remit of ‘interest of public order’?
Where does the test lie for determining the extent of the reasonableness of the restrictions and what actions would be in the interest of the public order? What is the redressal mechanism for citizens, who are of the view that they have been deprived of their rights to assembly as provided under the constitution and deprived unlawfully by the State?
What is the scope of Article 19 of the Constitution? What is the redressal mechanism available against those who have breached constitutional right guaranteed under Article 19?
What are the responsibilities and obligations of the government against whom such a political dharna is being staged? Who and how, will regulate the actions of the government against whom such a dharna is to be or being exercised?
What is the balance among various Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 9,12,15,16,17,18 and 19 of the Constitution read with Article 4 and 5 of the Constitution and whether the state machinery can curb one right on the pretext of protecting the other?