Counsels for different political parties on Thursday urged the apex court to show judicial restraint and not to pass any order for forced removal of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) protestors from Constitution Avenue in Islamabad.
Speaking before the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench hearing petitions filed by different bar associations against any possible extra-constitutional move in present political scenario, Raza Rabbani said use of force on protesters might have dreadful consequences and could trigger something else.
Counsel for Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Jamaat-e- Islami (JI), Aitzaz Ahsan, also came at the rostrum and convinced the bench not to pass order for eviction of protesters.
“The dharnas are likely to be wound up after Eidul Azha; therefore, the court should ignore them by adopting the policy of ‘judicial restraint’,” he suggested, adding that there might be dreadful consequences of any court order against protesters.
Both the attorneys also recommended the bench not to determine the limits of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech while interpreting Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. They suggested the court to leave the matter for parliament to legislate over.
It must be noted that several senior lawyers were urging the court to pass an order for the clearance of Constitution Avenue of protesters and the bench was about to pass an appropriate order on Thursday.
Earlier, a member of the bench, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar observed that they would not allow anyone to use Supreme Court as a laundry to wash ‘political dirt’.
He also expressed ire over the disturbance caused to people’s free movement on Constitutional Avenue due to sit-ins. He asked PAT counsel Ali Zafar as to why the party had not fulfilled its commitment even after giving an undertaking to clear one side of Constitution Avenue.
“Is your client aware of the consequences of breaking an undertaking with the top court?” he asked. He said the SC was receiving a large number of applications for adjournment of cases as lawyers all over the country said they could not come in SC due to ongoing political impasse.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Nasirul Mulk, who heads the bench, observed that protestors were also raising slogans against judges. Shouldn’t the protesters face consequences over the breach of law, the CJ asked PAT’s attorney.
Bench seeks reply from PML-Q and AML
The Supreme Court also asked Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) and Awami Muslim League to reply the three questions, raised on September 10 by Raza Rabbani as counsel for Awami National Party (ANP) and Balochistan National Party-Awami (BNP-A).
Rabbani had asked as to whether any group could seek to disengage a prime minister from his office under threat of violence; whether a political leader could legitimately involve Pakistan army in his design to achieve his unconstitutional objectives and whether a political leader could misrepresent the support of Pakistan army.
Observing that these were ‘very relevant questions’, the CJP said the court had already passed restraining order about any possible extra-constitutional step in the prevailing political situation.
Referring to the recent statements of Javed Hashmi, Aslam Beg and Pervez Musharraf, Rabbani said these statements gave clues to the possibility of an extra-constitutional step and endorsed his apprehensions.
“The ‘dictator’ (Musharraf) is expecting a ‘technocrat government’,” he added.
SC accepts plea against lower court’s order
Meanwhile, the court also accepted for hearing the government’s plea against a lower court’s order to register an FIR against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and other government dignitaries and Islamabad High Court’s decision to stop the police from arresting protesters, involved in attack on Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV).
The bench has also decided to examine the footage regarding the protesters’ alleged attack on the PTV and Parliament House through multimedia on the next date of hearing, ie, third week of October.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 3rd, 2014.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
All over the world "Judges speak through order" not verbally. Why people think that judiiciary is against everyone but in favor of N- league. How many orders have been past in this one & half year as compare to PPP tenure. Is N- league is full of angles? & other partiese r full of? We as people of Pakistan has not stood against corruption, Injustice & de merit? Whether done by anyone,belong to any community. We alwasy look at the personal matters of the person but not the collective behaviour & damage by the person sitting in parliament or Govt.
Word "Judge" "Judiciary" & "Justice" is a commodity.
Way to go, take a just stand and keep the rights of citizens intact. Even though I have nothing in common with those Dharna but that was their democratic right. To occupy the area indefinitely may not be their right but demonstration certainly is. Kudos to the opposition leaders of PPP and ANP. Even though PTI and its trolls have been insulting these elected leaders, yet they are taking a principled stand and not opposing IK/Qadri for the sake of opposition.
True justice can only be served if those responsible for attack on the President's House, PTV, and Parliament are truly brought to justice.