Arguing that the appeal lies exclusively with the SC cannot be exercised by the Registrar
ISLAMABAD:
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, challenged in the Supreme Court on Monday the Attorney General’s decision to return their petitions against the Islamabad High Court’s refusal to suspend their judgments in the £190 million Al-Qadir Trust case.
The couple filed a chamber appeal through their lawyer, Barrister Salman Safdar, under Order V, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025 challenging the registrar’s June 29 decision to return their petitions against the IHC’s April 30 order.
The Chamber appeal argued that the Registrar’s office is primarily vested with administrative and procedural powers regarding the filing and processing of cases.
“Such powers are limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements, including scrutiny of form, limitation and other prescribed defects, and do not include determination of substantive or equitable issues,” argued the Chamber of Appeal, adding that the determination of upholding, particularly where the involved interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions that required judicial application of legal purposes, was a judicial reasoning, and submission.
Such jurisdiction “rests exclusively with the Supreme Court and cannot be exercised by the Registrar in an administrative capacity”, it said.
The appeal further alleged that while returning the petitions, the Registrar’s Office had failed to consider the crucial aspect that under Article 175-A of the Constitution, any Supreme Court judgments, decrees, final orders and judgments could be appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) where it is expressly provided by law.
It argued that Section 32A of the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) allows for a second appeal to the FCC against a Supreme Court decision under Section 32 of the Ordinance following the rejection of a first appeal.
“However, the NAO does not expressly provide for an appeal from an order made on an application for a stay of sentence, even where such an application arises in an appeal under section 32 of the Order,” the Chambers Appeal said.
