PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday directed an additional attorney general to consult with the attorney general for Pakistan regarding a petition, which sought public release of the draft of the proposed constitutional amendments bill before its tabling in parliament.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Wiqar Ahmad put off hearing into the petition until Oct 22 after AAG Sanaullah Khan said the attorney general had so far not nominated any law officer to represent the federal government in the case.
He added that the Supreme Court would also hear an identical petition on Oct 17, so it would be appropriate to adjourn the hearing into the petition of former MNA Bushra Gohar.
The petitioner’s lawyer, Ali Gohar Durrani, contended that the case before the Supreme Court was different from the one filed by his client.
He added that both the cases had different grounds.
Adjourns hearing into ex-MNA’s petition
The counsel pointed out that in the petition pending with the apex court, the proposed constitutional amendment package had been challenged, while the issue raised by his client was different.
The AAG said that an identical case had already been rejected by the Sindh High Court.
When the bench asked him whether the judgement of the Sindh High Court was binding on the Peshawar High Court, Mr Durrani replied in negative.
The AAG also argued that he had talked to the federal law minister who had informed that the government had been consulting with the opposition and other parties on the matter, and changes to the draft amendments would be made accordingly.
He said that as the draft had yet not been finalised, it won’t be appropriate to make it public.
When the bench inquired whether the draft of the proposed amendments would be made public after its finalization, the AAG replied in affirmative. The bench asked the AAG whether he would advance arguments in the case, to which he said that he would act in accordance with the directives of the attorney general.
Advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankhel also appeared for the provincial government.
The petitioner also sought an interim relief, requesting the court to stop the government from proceeding with any constitutional amendment until the draft of such amendments is made public.
He sought the court’s directives for the government to officially publicise the proposed constitutional package for public consultation for a minimum period of eight weeks.
Mr Durrani stated it was in the public knowledge that on Sept 15, a session of both National Assembly and Senate was convened to introduce the proposed constitutional package.
He, however, said that the issue was delayed as the government spokesperson on legal affairs, Barrister Aqeel Malik, claimed that consensus was to be developed on the proposed amendments.
The lawyer claimed that the parliamentarians, who were gathered in the assembly on Sept 15, later admitted that they had not seen the draft they were meant to vote for.
Meanwhile, the bench also adjourned the hearing into a petition, which challenged Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance, 2024, and sought orders to stop the federal government from tabling any constitutional amendment bill.
The next hearing will be held on Oct 22.
The petition was filed by Peshawar District Bar Association through its vice president Abdul Haseeb, requesting the court to declare the amendments made in the law through SC (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance, 2024, as unconstitutional.
The petitioner also requested the court that as the two houses of parliament were incomplete, the federal government should be restrained from introducing any bill for amendment of the Constitution.
Advocates Qazi Mohammad Anwar and Chaudhry Ishtiaq A Khan have been representing the petitioner
The petitioner has said through the impugned ordinance the government changed the composition of the committee that formed benches and fixed cases under the Act.
He said that the committee originally consisted of chief justice and two senior-most judges of the court, but now it would consist of chief justice, the next most senior judge, and a judge picked by the chief justice.
The petitioner said there was no emergency situation in the country, so the promulgation of an ordinance was uncalled-for.
Published in Dawn, October 16th, 2024
