Not supporting any extra-constitutional steps, PTI tells SC
Rabbani had raised 3 questions over the protesting parties’ 'misrepresentation' of army’s support for sit-ins
ISLAMABAD:
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has refused to respond to Parliament’s apprehension regarding the party's 'misrepresentation' of the army’s support for their sit-in in Islamabad.
PTI’s counsel Yousaf Khosa, while submitting a reply before a in the Supreme Court, stated that the party did not have the "benefit of knowledge" of the concerns raised by parliamentarians and was, therefore, unable to respond specifically to their apprehension.
Senior parliamentarian Raza Rabbani, while representing the Awami National Party (ANP) and the Balochistan National Party (BNP) on September 10, had expressed his apprehensions before the apex court, raising three questions.
The first question filed in the apex court by Rabbani was: “Whether any political party or any other group could ask constitutional office-bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution?”
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 the army, by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, will determine the future course of his action?”
The third question was: “Whether a political leader can misrepresent the support of the Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communications, thereby compromising the image of a national institution?"
The same day -- September 10, the court had directed the protesting parties to submit a reply to these questions within three days.
Meanwhile, PTI’s reply stated that the party would not support any extra-constitutional step in the prevailing political situation and will also oppose any such moves.
The reply further states that the guiding principles of the Constitution, democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice are part of the party’s manifesto.
“The answering respondent (the PTI) is not only exercising its rights of existence by awakening the people to their rights and obligations of the present government in a democratic society within the framework of the Constitution and propagating, it is submitted, the true supremacy of the Constitution, which includes Article 218 of the same,” the PTI contended.
Referring to Article 4 of the Constitution, the reply stated that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person can be taken except in accordance with law. Further, referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, the PTI said loyalty to the state and obedience to the Constitution is the obligation of every citizen of Pakistan.
The reply further stated that the fundamental rights provided in part II of the Constitution, including Articles 19, 10, 10-A, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 , 18 and 19, must be upheld by the apex court with a holistic approach while enforcing each one individually.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has refused to respond to Parliament’s apprehension regarding the party's 'misrepresentation' of the army’s support for their sit-in in Islamabad.
PTI’s counsel Yousaf Khosa, while submitting a reply before a in the Supreme Court, stated that the party did not have the "benefit of knowledge" of the concerns raised by parliamentarians and was, therefore, unable to respond specifically to their apprehension.
Senior parliamentarian Raza Rabbani, while representing the Awami National Party (ANP) and the Balochistan National Party (BNP) on September 10, had expressed his apprehensions before the apex court, raising three questions.
The first question filed in the apex court by Rabbani was: “Whether any political party or any other group could ask constitutional office-bearers to disengage from office under threat of violence or use of force in violation of the Constitution?”
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 the army, by a ‘yes’ or ‘no’, will determine the future course of his action?”
The third question was: “Whether a political leader can misrepresent the support of the Pakistan Army to their cause in public or private communications, thereby compromising the image of a national institution?"
The same day -- September 10, the court had directed the protesting parties to submit a reply to these questions within three days.
Meanwhile, PTI’s reply stated that the party would not support any extra-constitutional step in the prevailing political situation and will also oppose any such moves.
The reply further states that the guiding principles of the Constitution, democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice are part of the party’s manifesto.
“The answering respondent (the PTI) is not only exercising its rights of existence by awakening the people to their rights and obligations of the present government in a democratic society within the framework of the Constitution and propagating, it is submitted, the true supremacy of the Constitution, which includes Article 218 of the same,” the PTI contended.
Referring to Article 4 of the Constitution, the reply stated that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person can be taken except in accordance with law. Further, referring to Article 5 of the Constitution, the PTI said loyalty to the state and obedience to the Constitution is the obligation of every citizen of Pakistan.
The reply further stated that the fundamental rights provided in part II of the Constitution, including Articles 19, 10, 10-A, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 , 18 and 19, must be upheld by the apex court with a holistic approach while enforcing each one individually.