The judge of the Superior Court of Lahore, Khalid Ishaq, dismissed the requests presented by the former opposition leader in the Punjab Assembly, Malik Ahmad Khan Bhachar, and former Mna Mena Mena Muhammad Ahmad Chatha, who challenged the Pakistan notifications electoral commission (ECP) than those of Notified. The court observed that, since the petitioners are fugitive of justice in all cases, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this court for judicial review.
The subtle but decisive distinction of a “nexus to the case” is the key factor that concludes the applicability, or otherwise, of the fugitive dissemination doctrine in a civil issue caused by a criminal fugitive.
The application of this doctrine to the facts of these cases leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the notifications of the ECP, challenged through these constitutional requests, are inextricably linked to the convictions of the petitioners.
Read too: Government ‘completely not being’ in the 27th amendment, new provinces: frog
The respondents questioned the maintainability of these requests, arguing that the petitioners are convicts that have not submitted to due process, remain released and have active perpetual arrest orders. Therefore, they affirmed that the petitioners have no right to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under article 199 of the Constitution.
The additional attorney general of Pakistan argued this maintainability point depending on several judgments. In summary, the additional attorney general said that the jurisdiction of judicial review cannot be granted to the petitioners in these circumstances, since the equitable jurisdiction should not help a fugitive of justice.
In addition, he argued that a citizen who seeks the intervention of this Court must first show how he is entitled to a remedy when he is guilty of teasing a court order, specifically, he flees after the conviction.
Finally, he declared that the jurisdiction under article 199 is extraordinary and equitable and should not be exercised by someone who has approached the Court with “immune hands”, being a fugitive of justice. The law officers representing ECP largely adopted their arguments.
In response to the question of maintaining, the lawyer of the petitioners argued that despite a criminal conviction, civil rights remain protected. For example, challenging the contested notifications of the ECP through article 199 is not related to criminal conviction, and the fugitive state should only affect the specific cases in which the conviction occurred, not all matters.
Case details
It is worth mentioning that the petitioners had challenged their disqualification and tried to stop the next by-byls in their constituencies.
Read: Imran’s nephew, Shershah, sent a five -day preventive detention in the case of May 9 riots
The lawyer of the petitioners argued that procedures cannot be initiated against a member of the Assembly without a speaker reference. They pointed out that the legislators were disqualified without being heard, which violates the principles of natural justice.
The ECP disqualified the petitioners after their convictions in the cases of May 9 by the anti -terrorist courts. The Court of First Instance had each sentenced to 10 years in prison.
