Islamabad:
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court observed on Friday that Parliament was the relevant forum for the PTI in order to raise their voice for judicial investigation into the repression against the party leadership.
The bench of five members, led by Judge Amicin Khan, maintained the objections of the registrar’s office to another petition of the founder of the PTI and former leader of the Sher Afzal Marwat party for the formation of a separate commission of inquiry into the presumed rigging during the general elections.
The bench resumed the two petitions for the training of separate commissions of judicial inquiry. The court asked Hamid Khan, the lawyer for the founder of the PTI, to present his arguments on the objections of the registrar’s office. The court also granted arguments on the main petitions, despite objections.
However, Riaz Hanif Rahi, Marwat’s lawyer, told court that he would not discuss the main petition “as long as the objections are not withdrawn and the request is assigned the number”. Later, the hearing was adjourned indefinitely.
Then, the court resumed the second constitutional petition concerning the formation of a judicial commission on the repression and arrests of the managers and workers of the PTI. In this case, Salman Akram Raja appeared before the Court in the name of the founder of the PTI.
Sitting on the bench, judge Jamal Mandokhail told Raja that the petition said that the PTI management was targeted and asked “what it means”. On this subject, Raja told court that party leadership was mistreated and that several cases had been registered against PTI leaders.
The lawyer said he wanted to help the court, explaining why the training of a judicial committee was necessary in this situation. He also referred to the case of Panchota, saying that Panchota was “kidnapped and saved spectacular”.
Also sitting on the bench, Judge Musarrat Hilali asked if Panchota had registered his declaration from the police. On this point, Raja replied that Panchota had been invited to meet no one. Judge Mandokhail said the case could be raised in Parliament.
“You are in Parliament. Parliament is the relevant forum. Going to Parliament and breeding your voice on this subject,” Judge Mandokhail told the lawyer. On this subject, Raja said that parliament could do nothing about it. However, judge Mandokhel pointed out that parliament could do a lot.
Judge Mandokhel asked the lawyer what the commission of inquiry could do in the situation where business was dealt with in various forums. He added that a similar question arose during the mandate of former chief judge Nasirul Mulk.
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi said this question was raised in the ’35 punctures’ affair. The case linked to the legal proceedings after the founder of the PTI had leveled rigging allegations during the general elections in 2013.
Also sitting on the bench, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the lawyer, who had the power to train the commission of inquiry under the commission of inquiry. Raja replied that the authority belonged to the government, but the Supreme Court could also form a commission.
Raja cited an example of the Indian Supreme Court, claiming that when the state was involved in the 2002 Gujarat riots, the Supreme Court exercised its authority.
