Follow Us on Google News
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s Justice Qazi Faez Isa has dismissed appeals filed against the Registrar’s Office’s objections to constitutional petitions, seeking the formation of a commission to probe the alleged foreign conspiracy to topple the government of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, senior judge of the Supreme Court, heard the appeals in the chamber today and for the first time journalists were allowed to cover the proceedings.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Isa observed that it was not the matter of public importance, and passed remarks that when Imran Khan was Prime Minister, he could have ordered probe. He further remarked that if the federal government wanted, it could make public all cipher record, but if any individual did so, it would be a violation of ‘Secret Act’.
It may be recalled that on January 24, Justice Sardar Tariq Massod recused himself from hearing the identical appeals against the objections. The judge had forwarded the appeals to Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial for fixing them before another judge.
Advocates Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, Naeemul Hassan and Tariq Badar had filed petitions in the court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, making the federation of Pakistan through the secretary of law and justice, the Prime Minister and the cabinet secretary as respondents.
They had prayed the court to constitute a commission to investigate the “international conspiracy” that former Prime Minister Imran Khan had alleged was hatched to topple his government.
The registrar’s office, however, had returned the petitions with objections that they did not point out what questions of public importance were involved with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, so as to directly invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
It was further objected that the ingredients for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution had not been satisfied. It objected that the petitioners had not approached any other appropriate forum, available under the law for relief and also did not provide any justification for not doing so.
