Islamabad:
The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court observed on Friday that Parliament was the relevant forum for the PTI to raise its voice for judicial investigation into repression against party leadership.
The five -member bank, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, maintained the objections of the Registrar’s office to another request from the founder of PTI and former leaders of the Sher Afzal Marwat party for the formation of a separate investigation commission on the alleged appearance in the general elections.
The Bank assumed the two requests for the formation of separate judicial investigation commissions. The court asked Hamid Khan, the lawyer of the founder of PTI, to present his arguments about the objections of the Registry Office. The court also allowed arguments about the main requests, despite the objections.
However, Riaz Hanif Rahi, Marwat’s lawyer, told the court that he would not argue about the main request “until the objections are eliminated and that the request is assigned the number.” Later, the audience was postponed indefinitely.
Then, the Court assumed the second constitutional request related to the formation of a judicial commission on the repression and arrests of the leaders and workers of PTI. In this case, Salman Akram Raja appeared in the Court on behalf of the founder of PTI.
Sitting at the bank, Judge Jamal Commandkhail told Raja that the petition declared that PTI’s leadership was being attacked and asked “what this means.” In that, Raja told the court that the leadership of the party was being mistreated, and several cases had registered against PTI leaders.
The lawyer declared that he wanted to help the Court, why the formation of a judicial commission was necessary in this situation. He also referred to the case of intending Panchota, saying that Panchota was “kidnapped and rescued dramatically.”
Sitting at the bank, Judge Musarrat Hilali asked if Panchota had registered his statement with the police. In that, Raja replied that Panchota had told him not to meet anyone. Judge Commandkhail said the matter could be raised in Parliament.
“You are in Parliament. The Parliament is the relevant forum. Go to Parliament and raise your voice,” Judge Commandkhail told the lawyer. In that, Raja said that Parliament could not do anything about it. However, Judge Commandkhel commented that Parliament could do a lot.
Judge Commandkhel asked the lawyer what the investigation commission could do in the situation when the cases were processed in different forums. He added that a similar question arose during the mandate of former justice president Nasirul Mulk.
Judge Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that this question was raised in the case of ’35 ‘paintites. The case related to legal procedures after the founder of PTI had leveled the accusations of rigs in the general elections in 2013.
Sitting at the bank, Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar asked the lawyer to have the authority to form the Investigation Commission under the Investigation Commission Law. Raja replied that the authority belonged to the government, but the Supreme Court could also form a commission.
Raja cited an example of the Supreme Court of India, saying that when the State was involved in the 2002 Gujarat disturbances, the Supreme Court exercised its authority.
