Islamabad:
The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench noted on Friday that Parliament was the relevant forum for PTI to raise his vote for judicial investigation into the crash against the party leadership.
The five-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, maintained the objections of the registrar office to another petition from the PTI founder and former party leaders Sher Afzal Marwat for the formation of a separate commission of inquiry to the alleged rig of the parliamentary election.
The bench took the two petitions up for the formation of separate justice investigation commissions. The court asked Hamid Khan, the lawyer of the PTI founder, to present his arguments at the registrar office’s objections. The court also allowed arguments about the most important petitions despite the objections.
However, Riaz Hanif Rahi, the lawyer of Marwat, told the court that he would not argue for the most important petition “until the objections have been removed and the petition is awarded the number”. Later, the hearing was postponed indefinitely.
Then the court took the second constitutional petition regarding the formation of a legal commission on the crashes and arrests of the PTI managers and the workers. In this case, Salman Akram Raja appeared on the court on behalf of the PTI founder.
When he was sitting on the bench, Justice Jamal Mandokhail told Raja that the petition stated that the PTI management was targeted and asked “what does it mean”. On this, Raja told the court that the party leadership was abused and several cases had been registered against the PTI leaders.
The lawyer declared that he would help the court about why the formation of a legal commission was necessary in this situation. He also referred to the case of Intezar Panchota and said Panchota was “kidnapped and saved dramatically”.
Also by sitting on the bench, Justice Musarrat Hilali asked if Panchota had registered her statement with police. On this, Raja replied that Panchota had been asked not to meet anyone. Justice Mandokhail said the case could be raised in parliament.
“You are in Parliament. Parliament is the relevant forum. Go to Parliament and raise your vote on it,” Justice Mandokhail told the lawyer. On this one, Raja said Parliament could do nothing about it. However, Justice Mandokhel noted that Parliament could do a lot.
Justice Mandokhel asked the lawyer what the Investigation Commission could do in the situation where cases were dealt with in different forums. He added that a similar question arose during the former Chief Justice Nasirul Mulk’s mandate period.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said this question was raised in ’35 puncture case ‘. The case related to that litigation after the PTI founder leveled out allegations of rigging in the 2013 parliamentary elections.
As he sat on the bench, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the lawyer about who had the authority to form the commission of inquiry under the investigation law. Raja replied that the authority belonged to the government, but the Supreme Court could also form a commission.
Raja quoted an example of the Indian Supreme Court and said that when the state was involved in the Gujarat riots in 2002, the Supreme Court practiced its authority.
