ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought explanation from the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) over Parliament’s apprehensions regarding the protesting parties’ misrepresentation of the army’s support for their sit-ins.
Awami National Party and Balochistan National Party counsel Raza Rabbani expressed these apprehensions to the five-judge bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk.
In view of his apprehensions, the counsel raised three questions significant to the present political scenario.
“Whether any political party or any other group could seek constitutional office bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution,” the first question read.
The second question raised was: “Whether any political leader can legitimately involve the Pakistan Army in his design to achieve his unconstitutional objectives by attempting to reassure his followers that army by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will determine the future course of his action.”
“Whether a political leader can misrepresent the support of Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communications, thereby compromising the image of a national institution,” said the third question.
Responding to these questions, Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk said that despite the issuance of a restraining order directing state functionaries to not take any extra constitutional steps on August 15, apprehensions in this regard were still alive. In light of this, Mulk said the court will keep this matter open.
The court also directed the protesting parties to submit a reply to these questions within three days.
PTI’s counsel Yousaf Khosa clarified that the PTI will strongly oppose any extra constitutional steps taken in the present political scenario.
Meanwhile, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar said that protests play a positive role in making people aware of their right and it is the duty of opposition parties to point out the government’s mistakes.
However, Justice Saqib added, protesting parties should not violate the rights of others.
He further questioned PML-Q’s counsel why his leadership was talking about the imposition of a coup in the country.
Meanwhile, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja raised questions over the use of abusive language by PAT and PTI’s leadership against their opponents.
“Politics is the name of compromises but the court will give verdicts in view of the Constitution,” said Justice Jawwad.
Attorney General for Pakistan Salman Aslam Butt informed the bench the government was showing restraint despite attacks on state properties by protesters.
The hearing of the case has been adjourned till next week.
COMMENTS (7)
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 precedent the court has just set will allow PTI and PAT to openly challenge the PM in the same court for misrepresenting the Army in his remarks in the parliament. And if the court doesn't act fairly, its bias will be in front of everyone. The esteemed Lords are shooting themselves in the foot with this one.
@Imran: Come on stick to the point regarding prevailing situation. Those judges have gone and you are beating the bush. Let us talk about civil disobedience call, asking police and military to join with Dharna Walas. These actions/calls amount to mutiny
Could these Judges ask why these guys are protesting, who killed fourteen people in M.Town, who hid reports of commission and JIT, who besieged whole Punjab and Islamabad with containers, who rigged elections, why there were so much anomalies in constituencies that were opened, and who called army for facilitation. And which case court is listening: extra-constitutional measures, does any thing happened until now? Off-course not, Because there happened nothing unconstitutional until now from the side of protesting parties. Now court should adjourn this case, rather being supportive to this corrupt parliament, and if you cannot provide justice, let people decide their fate.
For the record PTI took no "Extra Judicial steps". Our Supreme Leaders Container in the Parliament lawn was a small oversight by over zealous workers who wanted him to be PM without waiting for an election. That was not "extra judicial" only "non judicial". Its a Bill Clinton style definitional thing with our Supreme Leader. Like he did not have relations with Sita White in his definition. get it?
Honorable and Respected Chief Justice and Supreme court, the whole nation seeks justice from you, you are doing everything to make your "Lord" happy, but when you will do something for this nation. ???
SC should first question it's judges for signing PCO.