The judge of the High Court of Lahore, Khalid Ishaq, rejected the petitions deposited by the former head of the opposition to the Assembly of Punjab, Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar and the former Mna Muhammad Ahmad Chatha, who disputed the electoral commission of notifications of Pakistan (ECP) which deactivated them. The court observed that, as the petitioners are fugitives of justice in all cases, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court for a judicial examination.
The subtle but decisive distinction of a “link to the case” is the key factor which determines the applicability – or otherwise – of the doctrine of fleeting dissection in a civil affair brought by a criminal fugitive.
The application of this doctrine to the facts of these cases leads to the essential conclusion that the notifications of the ECP, disputed by these constitutional petitions, are inextricably linked to the convictions of the petitioners.
Also read: Govt “ completely non -series ” The 27th amendment, new provinces: Rana
The respondents questioned the maintainability of these petitions, arguing that the petitioners are condemned who have not submitted to a regular procedure, generally remain and have active perpetual arrest mandates. Consequently, they said that the petitioners do not have the right to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under article 199 of the Constitution.
The additional prosecutor general of Pakistan has argued this point of maintainability in dependence on various judgments. In short, the additional prosecutor general argued that jurisdiction in matters of a judicial review cannot be granted to petitioners in these circumstances, because fair competence should not help a fugitive from justice.
He also argued that a citizen asking for the intervention of this court should first show how he has the right to appeal when he is guilty of having flouted a judicial order – in particular, fleeing after conviction.
Finally, he declared that the court under article 199 is extraordinary and fair and should not be exercised by someone who approached the court with “unclean hands”, being a fugitive of justice. The police representing ECP largely adopted its arguments.
Responding to the question of maintainability, the petitioner council argued that despite a criminal conviction, civil rights remain protected. For example, contesting the disputed notifications of the ECP via article 199 is not linked to criminal conviction, and fugitive status should only affect the specific cases in which the conviction has occurred – not all questions.
Details of the case
It should be mentioned that the petitioners challenged their disqualification and sought to stop the next rhythms in their constituencies.
Read: The nephew of Imran, Shershah, sent a five -day pre -trial detention in the case of the May 9 riots
The petitioner lawyer argued that no procedure can be initiated against a member of the assembly without reference to the speaker. They noted that legislators were disqualified without being heard, which violates the principles of natural justice.
The ECP disqualified the petitioners following their convictions in the affairs of May 9 by anti -terrorist courts. The Court of First Instance each sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
