ISLAMABAD: The family of former chief judge of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) Muhammad Shamim Rana’s son, on Monday, moved the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against some Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) ministers and leaders.
The petitioners including Ahmad Hassan Rana advocate son of Muhammad Shamim Rana, Anum Ahmed Rana wife of Ahmed Hasan Rana, Muhammad Hamza Rana son of Ahmed Hasan Rana, and Miss Areeba Ahmed Rana daughter of Ahmad Hasan Rana filed the petition through Ahmad Hassan Rana, son of Rana Shamim, and sought disqualification of the PTI leaders and ministers, and requested for initiation of contempt of court proceedings against them and other respondents.
In the petition, they cited the federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Law, the chairman Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), Senator Faisal Vawda, Federal Minister Fawad Chaudhary, PTI leader Sadaqat Ali Abbasi, Farrukh Habib, federal minister of state for Information and Broadcasting, Anwar Mansoor Khan, former attorney general of Pakistan, and others as respondents.
The petition stated that it is very mentally disturbing for the petitioners to face the questions such as “whether your father-in-law and grandfather have compromised his reputation for some perks and privileges awarded by Mian Muhammad Sharif to former Justice Rana Muhammad Shamim?”
Ahmad Hassan said that a misconception and a distorted image of Rana Muhammad Shamim and his son has been presented by TV media hubs working under the name and style of ARY News to promote the narrative designed by astute politicians such as Faisal Vawda, Fawad Chaudhry for their ulterior motive to intentionally malign Rana Shamim.
Ahmad further said that former attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan has even gone to the extent of saying that “Rana Muhammad Shamim was merely a Chief Judge and Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit Baltistan is not a Constitutional Court”.
He added that it is indirectly a violation of the Supreme Court judgment titled as Civil Aviation Authority vs. Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit-Baltistan reported in PLD 2019 SC 357.
The counsel maintained that all the petitioners were startled and shocked by the false, frivolous, and baseless statements given by former Attorney General of Pakistan Anwar Mansoor Khan and they have been questioned time and again by the general public and mentally harassed by the general public who are very keen to know the real truth.
He said that they are facing the question whether Justice (retired) Rana Shamim is telling the truth. He further said that the petitioners, having high regard for their beloved father-in-law and grandfather, have been trying their level best to clear the misconceptions.
However, he continued that one question is really bothering the petitioners that Rana Shamim who revealed a very bitter truth is facing contempt petition before the IHC but on the other hand, no inquiry till to date has been initiated against the person mentioned in the affidavit sworn by Shamim.
He reiterated that whatever has been stated in the affidavit, is based on the conversation that was heard by Rana, while he was present at Gilgit-Baltistan and unless and until the same is proven to be false no malafide could be attributed, especially when the same statement has not been released to media or any journalist by him.
He further said that Shamim is ready to state the facts mentioned in statement on solemn oath and he is also ready to confront the person mentioned in the affidavit, i.e., former Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar as categorically stated in his reply in criminal original petition.
The petitioners also mentioned the speech of former IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and video leak case of late judge of the Accountability Court, Arshad Malik.
The counsel prayed before the court to declare that respondents including Vawda, Fawad Chaudhry, Farrukh Habib, and Abbasi are liable to disqualified under article 63 1 (a) and 62 1 (f) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and declare that they are not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen. He also requested the court to declare them liable to be disqualified under Article 62 (1) (f) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and for violating Rule 3 (i) (j) (k) and (l) of the PEMRA Code of Conduct, 2015.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022
Comments
Comments are closed.