ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench dismissed a petition challenging the status of the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) as a parliamentary party, upholding objections raised by the registrar’s office.
A seven-member bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on Wednesday, heard Maulvi Iqbal Haider’s petition challenging the declaration of the SIC as a parliamentary party, and other constitutional matters.
During the proceedings, petitioner argued that his request was filed on time and that he sought a review of the SIC’s parliamentary designation. Justice Mandokhail asked the petitioner why he wanted the Court to perform an unconstitutional act. It is the candidates’ choice to join any political party, he said.
Justice Amin told Iqbal that you are going down the same path that previously led to banning your entry in the Supreme Court. The bench upheld the registrar’s objections and dismissed the petition.
Moreover, the bench dismissed a petition challenging the limited public access to the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that 90 per cent of petitioners are unable to reach the Supreme Court.
Justice Mandokhail said they are listening to him directly, and asked what more access does he need? He further stated; “You are undermining your own institution. He expressed annoyance over global bodies’ rankings of Pakistan’s judiciary, which place it extremely low. “Some say our judiciary ranks 120, others say 150, but where these numbers come from, we don’t know,” he added.
The constitutional bench also dismissed a petition seeking a fixed timeframe for the completion of trials in higher judicial forums.
Justice Ayesha observed that many laws, including criminal laws, already have timelines. Justice Mandokhail told the petitioner that for timeframes, he should approach the Parliament for legislation.
Petitioner Hassan Raza argued that trials sometimes take 20 to 40 years to conclude. Justice Malik advised, “Avoid sweeping statements and baseless allegations. The system isn’t perfect, but there is progress. Your petition concerns the National Judicial Policy, and under Article 184 (3), we cannot issue directives. Reforms are ongoing; join those efforts if you wish— this is not our role.”
Justice Mandokhail emphasised that “we are bound by the Constitution and law.” Justice Mussarat Hilali cautioned that an equally strong response from the judiciary might cause further disillusionment.
Justice Malik further noted, “The Law and Justice Commission exists for judicial reforms— please refer to them.” The court dismissed the petition following these arguments.
The bench also heard a petition concerning the dismissal of government officials who did not do their designated jobs or remained unassigned to any duties. The Court after hearing the arguments declared the petition inadmissible and dismissed it.
Justice Ayesha pointed out that the petitioner’s request essentially called for the dismissal of all government employees, suggesting that they do not perform any work. She advised the petitioner to identify the specific officials in question and approach the relevant authorities for action.
Justice Mazhar noted that the petitioner had failed to mention any specific government officials in their application. Justice Mandokhail asked the petitioner which particular task had not been completed, urging them to clarify. He asked, “What do you mean? Should we dismiss the president, prime minister, speaker, and all members of the assembly?”
The petitioner responded by claiming that the system had collapsed and that no one was willing to listen to the truth. The bench dismissed the petition, declaring it inadmissible.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.